Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Zilla]

Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.

[Zilla]

No dice, I want to see where people stand before they try to appeal to me. If their case has any merit, they should be able to present it themselves.

[Zilla]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

[Zilla]

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

[Zilla]

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway.

It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

These responses make me feel your arguments are totally invalid, you are unwilling to back them up.

[Zilla]

I don't get anything from rereading. I've replaced before on day 2, and I couldn't even glean anything from day 1, and all my effective scumhunting was done based on things I saw after I replaced in.

It's tough and tedious to process that kind of information that has already happened without having an anchor, and I'm trying to get that anchor in the game.

IF you want my initial reactions, so far, it seems Panzer's been taking a lot of the spotlight and I find myself agreeing whoelheartedly with half of what he says, and disagreeing almost as strongly with the other half, which is peculiar for me. Usually, I have a solid feel about someone, a consistant read, but Panzer's been all over the place.

Specific examples:

And I'm not in any way sitting the fence. As I explained, I do think you are scummy but that doesn't mean I'm convinced you are scum. And as I have also explained, I think the wagon on you is sufficient as it is so I'm in no hurry to put you closer to a lynch.

Ironically in the same paragraph you tell me you're not Fence sitting you tell that you, indeed, are fence sitting.

This isn't exactly a pro-town tell, but he's got a point.

Also, read any of my games or ask a player who is prominent at this site and

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons.

I don't agree with the spin he's putting on this. It's all a matter of interpretation as for whether he's "singling" or actually hunting, and he's kind of second guessing motivation here.

Bah, the rest of his post is an argument about semantics.

You know, really, I want summaries on these cases because the way it looks right now, the arguments are really petty and stale, and we all need to take a step back and assess where we are on these things. Almost all the arguments I've seen so far this game are nit-picky and built up to be more than they should, and I really want some accountability here. You guys who refuse to summarize where you stand are eschewing accountability, and that is not a good sign for you or your case.

That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

[Zilla]

Also, you seem to think that I'm ready to buy anything anyone sells me, which is totally incorrect. This is a call to test your convictions. Don't think I won't be following up on these cases at all.

I haven't liked what I've seen so far. Most of these things seem to arguments based on nothing but pure speculation, which is hardly above the Random Voting Stage. I know it's day 1, but I've seen way too many arguments over semantics and supposed slips for my taste.

[Zilla]

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case. I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an

FOS

.

[Zilla]

^ See, wasn't so hard now, was it?

Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.

We've got a mannequin in class. Before we ask the instructor anything about our code, we have to explain what our problem is to the mannequin. This is because in the middle of explaining it, we will often realize our own mistake, saving the instructor time.

I'm trying that approach here, because honestly, I haven't seen a case I've liked so far, and also honestly, I don't have a good feel on anybody. Most games, everybody is at least somewhat town. This game, it seems like everyone and their brother are scum.

Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.

The only thing I can get behind is the last one, because seeing his reads, he really does seem to have a lot of fence-riding stances. However, the vote basically being an aside at the end makes that vote switch seem really strange, and it's possible he's just giving up the ghost on a MacCavity wagon that didn't pan out.

[Zilla]

WHAT?! You don't need a frame of reference! Just read everyone and try and develop your own characterization of each person otherwise your frame of reference will just be a copy of someone elses or you will ONLY counter one person. Offering your own opinion is much better than hearing the same thing again or an attack on ONLY one person's opinion. Seriously, replacing in is difficult, but not impossible or greatly challenging...

Someone didn't read that I'm not looking for a case to follow but where people stand on their cases. If I were just looking for some cast to latch on to, I'd do a speed-read of the top vote getter's voters and lazily construct a half-assed reason to bandwagon. No, I'm evaluating the players based on their stances and how likely their positions are actual scumhunting instead of just setting up a fall-guy or trying ot lynch anybody.

That's what I was alluding to when I said it would be helpful to current players, they could see if people are voting for bad reasons more clearly.

I've been in games with a few people like this before, never one with this many. That's one reason I think everybody looks scummy, usually I'd have no problem getting people to say where they stand on this game, but instead this time I'm met with fierce resistance as if I'm lazy for trying to get accountability. I really don't think there are 6 scum in this game... :/

[Zilla]

Fuck but if this isn't a long, boring, unhelpful post. Skip to *** for summary.

Goat's too aggressively defensive

Paradoxical buzzwords with no backing are pretty much meaningless. If you want to call me aggressively defensive, define what aggressively defensive is and show me how scum are more likely to do it than town.

Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.

, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

It's funny how you admit your vote is bad, but justify it by saying "other people have bad votes" and then try to suggest I'm scum because you think my vote on MacavityLock is bad, when you don't even know the reasons I was voting him.

It's funny how you misrepresent my argument. Wait, no it's not.

Further, you refused to justify it, and hardly even justified your vote switch. You continue to be cryptic about why you were voting Macavity. I really think you never bought your case to begin with, you certainly dismissed it fast enough if your reasons for voting Birthday are stronger than those on Macavity.

"Flying under the radar" couldn't be further from the truth. I'm one of the most contributing members of this game. Obviously, you wouldn't know that, having not read it, and making no effort to acquaint yourself with any of my posts this game, even though your vote is on me.

Just because you've got vocalized opinions does not mean nobody is looking at you. I've read a few criticisms, but they seem half-hearted, and easily distracted by other things. Nobody has really given you a good once-over from what I've seen.

My reasons for voting BB are not poorly made. They are accurate depictions of his play, and he made no effort to dispute them in his last post.

I wouldn't say he needs to because it's a rediculously weak accusation to begin with. If you want him to respond, you've got to give him something to respond to, not just three off-the-cuff one-liners.

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.

The only thing I can get behind is the last one, because seeing his reads, he really does seem to have a lot of fence-riding stances.

What is wrong about my first two claims then. If you disagree, please enlighten us why.

Absense of scumhunting: although he's been playing detached, he's been behind his fair share of accusations and gone digging for clues. You need to establish his lack of scumhunting.

You need to elaborate on the so called "Suspicious disengage" also.

I'm going to come right out and say right now that I absolutely hate your playstyle, where you make generalized claims and wait for people to disprove them. It's tedious menial work, it jams up actual scumhunting, and it makes you unaccountable.

However, the vote basically being an aside at the end makes that vote switch seem really strange, and it's possible he's just giving up the ghost on a MacCavity wagon that didn't pan out.

I'm noting the irony that you are defending BB and attacking me on the basis of "the MacvityLock wagon not panning out", when BB's last post suggested ML was his most suspicious player. You don't seem to have any issue with him expressing suspicion of ML, but you do have issue with me doing so.

He actually cared to explain why he thought Macavity was suspicoius, while you disengaged at the drop of a hat.

Face the facts, my vote on ML has absolutely nothing to do with your suspicion of me whatsoever.

Who said it did?

You are entirely suspicious of me because I "pissed you off" by not giving you what you wanted.

Someone came late to the party, welcome aboard. I said that.

You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.

Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town. You're pushing people on stupid non logic, you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you, and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static, and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you.

You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.

Again, welcome to the party.

Since then, you have attempted to back up your vote by:

1. Saying I haven't provided content, have been floating through this game, or haven't provided my take on top wagons. You even mentioned that I hadn't done so in the last "2 or so pages," however, directly within the last two pages is a post by me providing exactly the kind of summary you are looking for.

I read that, it's not what I'm looking for, if you mean 240 (I don't see why you're so adamant about not posting any link or anything, you act like this information shouldn't be freely accessible, only the worthy should be able to know your stance, and you must make the sacred pilgrimage to page whatever to obtain such knowledge).

That post's basically "I'm suspicious of this!" but is full of empty accusations. To be honest, if that really is your idea of the state the game is in, I'm not buying it.

I called you out for this in my most recent post; you ignored it. You're not taking the facts into consideration, because they debunk your emotion-driven case.

It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.

Quite frankly, I have provided a wealth of content, have not been floating through this game (many players are guilty of this, whom you appear uninterested with)

Many players whom you care not to name?

Seriously, ever since I've started asking for information, you've yet to post anything concrete, instead you give all these vague ethereal shadow statements, perfectly fitting for scum trying to stay at a politically prime spot.

and have in fact provided my take on the top wagons. So you tell me, why are you ignoring this information?

Your takes are vague.

2. Calling into question the solidity of my vote on MacavityLock, under the basis that I am alone on the wagon (as if more votes lend more validity)

Normally, if you're the only person on somebody, you've got to have a good reason. Seems like you dorpped it in favor of Birthday though.

, and that I haven't explained my vote (I have, multiple times).

Again, vague and shoddy explanation.

These are errors that could be cleared up by reading through my posts

Or, you know, you could go on record and restate your prized opinions, you know, instead of arguing like this, which, god DAMN if it doesn't take less time.

(something I gave you simple instructions on how to do in my last post) and figuring out for yourself. I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.

You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.

3. Saying my reasons for voting BB are poorly made. You haven't backed this up. Nor did you ask me to elaborate further on my reasoning.

You're fucking joking. Seriously. First off, you didn't back up your lame reasons to begin with, and secondly, it's implied that you need to elaborate on your reasoning.

So how do you know those reasons are poor, and why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.

I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.

Those above 3 reasons are all weak, and you have shown a blatant willingess to

ignore

the evidence suggesting you are wrong.

Yes, those above three reasons that you just provided are all incredibly weak.

What evidence are you even talking about? You act like it exists, but you'll be damned if you have to actually bring it up or use it. Seriuosly.

Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted.

Half-right. It's initial cause is because you "didn't give me what I wanted," but it's not emotional, it's because you're uncooperative response seems incredibly scummy (read again, paranoia about creating inconsistencies, stemming possible inputs of information.




**************************************************

Aggresively defensive? That post is a case in point.

Goat's post is entirely enraging in that he always alludes to this "magic evidence" that he won't actually use, and so he fails to actually address anything.

From the posts I've read, he's extremely vague when he's not debating the smallest of minutia that doesn't matter in the slightest. Some of his phrases, like his comment on "Is original content actually pro-town?" seem so transparently scummy that I'm surprised nobody has picked up on him.

Reading him gives me a headache, again because of how he just focuses on the smallest and most trivial of things.

There's also the point that he expended way too much energy to craft yet another vague argument when he could have instead been a pro-town player and actually given his precious and oh-so-secret opinion on players in the game.

There's further his small misreps on my case, though that seems to be quite the epidemic around here.

I almost want to ask for a replacement because I really don't like how this game is going, especially with all these really bad arguments. Something about how we got out of RVS isn't right, and I honestly think we haven't learned much of anything of real value.

The SK thing was stupid, the first person who said "SK" might be the SK if there even is an SK, but beyond that, that whole argument has gotten way out of hand.

The "townie" thing has similarly been over-analyzed.

Just about every player right now looks like scum to me because all they've been talking about has been baseless menial tripe, and nobody really stands out from the crowd. I'd say Spring Lullaby wins the most town award.

[Zilla]

Underlining vague statements that need further explanation.

I want to point out that I am still suspicious of MacavityLock, despite moving my vote off of him. I still

have issues

with

his interactions with panzer

and

the responses

he gave to me when I pressured him on it originally, but I don't really see the point of keeping my vote on him while he is absent.

I reread part of the thread today, which led to my vote on BB, for the three reasons I gave.

Here's your precious 240, which supposedly has the substance I'm looking for. Vagueness is underlined.

Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage

This is true. I'm suspicious of some of

the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer.

Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).

ZILLA: WHY DOES THIS MEAN ANYTHING?

I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally,

I did not find it conclusive

, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.

ZILLA: YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTED ONE HECK OF A WEIRD HIERARCHY HERE

I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now.

I think Panzer has been scummy

, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet.

Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle.

I'm going to interrupt right here and say this reads as a scum-buddying-to-town tactic; you know Panzer's town so you want this on record that you "had a hunch" he was town already, so your reputation is better.

I want to scour the thread first and try to get a better feel. Furthermore, I'm still suspicious of MacavityLock's transformation from "Panzer is SK to Panzer is also top pick for mafia" and I want him to answer my questions. Hearing from Zilla would also be good.

Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him

slips were minor tells

Really? What changed? Compare the above bolded to the below from early game:

I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.

Here's a good point, but you JUST SAID that you didn't trust the wagon on Panzer. You've got some major cognitive dissonance going on here, and it's ironic you're pointing out another inconsistency while creating one yourself.

@subgenius: I disagree with your assessment that Panzer's attack on SL was some deflection tactic. He got called out for not scum hunting and was pressured to do some scum hunting of his own. That's what he came out with. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that both town and scum are going to at least put up an effort at scumhunting after being called out. It's pretty much a null-tell for me. However, I do somewhat agree with your underlying point that Panzer was doing little to no actual scumhunting prior to getting called out, as evidenced by him attacking SL 3 pages later.

@GIEFF: I disagree with some of your points about Panzer needing to provide original content. Is providing original content the mark of a true townie?

------

At any rate, I'm keeping my vote on MacavityLock for now. The case on GIEFF sounds more like frustration at his playstyle rather than legit suspicion. I don't see how trying to convince others to see your point of view is scummy, at all.

All in all, I'm able to glean from this post that you think Panzer is scummy but that his wagon is scum driven, and you're voting MacavityLock for changing his mind about Panzer's scum flavor. Weaksauce. Then you challenge a few people and then say you don't suspect them. The whole nature of this post really seems like straddling a fence with your feet on both sides.

[Zilla]

Okay, now I can at least see a bit of what you are thinking. I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're scum right now either.

unvote: goatrevolt

Also, I didn't read all of 294 because it was, again, an extension of minutia. If I answered all those, we'd be bickering for the rest of the day.

Now I've got to suppress the urge to answer them.. >_<

I guess there are some brief things I still need to address.

I really don't like your double standard, where you're allowed to be vague (unspecific, undetailed, whatever) and then demand others "refute" your claims through evidence when you haven't even provided any of your own (This is about your Birthday vote).

I'm a bit intrigued again why you dropped Macavity for Birthday and just let Macavity lurk off his accusations. I'd understand if Birthday was actually being crazy scummy, but your reasons are hardly even scum tells in themselves (lack of scumhunting? Town falls prey to this, and it's pretty subjective how much is enough. "suspicious disengage" from somebody you haven't voted for yourself is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. As for the fence-riding, some examples would strengthen your case.)

It seems you've got a bone to pick with Birthday, but you haven't really made anything of a case on him other than "he looks scummy." Seems more of your gut? That's not going to win anybody to your side.

For now,

Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

[Zilla]

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

I see where you got that out of:

(seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

I'm talking about the

argument

over the SK thing, specifically the parts where people say the SK knows who the mafia are, whether or not the SK is more desirable for a lynch, etc. The debate over it got very pointless, very fast.

I also said this:

The SK thing was stupid, the first person who said "SK" might be the SK if there even is an SK, but beyond that, that whole argument has gotten way out of hand.

[Zilla]

It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon

The way you phrase it, I assume you're suspicious of BB for withdrawing his vote in a manner that indicates they may be paired, and that he was distancing for his vote. A lot of your logic contradicts itself, so I can't really tell if you're voting Birthday contingent on Panzer being town or scum.

[Zilla]

It would be unfair of me to accuse you of being non aggressive but I would say you are arguing over pretty much nothing at all. All you have to do is read the thread. That is it. You have created more useless non game related discussion since replacing because you don't want to read the thread. That is slightly hypocritical.

What.
the.
Fuck.

I'm not the one who started this argument over posting summaries. If people had posted summaries to begin with, there would be more game relevant content and not this stupid meta-debate, but instead, people have spent more energy rebuffing my request than it would have taken to fulfill it, and I hate how people don't want to be held accountable!

Reading up from the front, I'm on page 6, and reading back from latest, I'm at page 9, so I've got three pages that I haven't read but I can pretty much fill in by stitching together the two segments.

Armed with more information, Panzer's conduct is fishy in regards to his case on mykonian, but also, mykonian is fishy himself, and the nature of their interactions has me believing they are mutually exclusive candidates for being scum. I can't see them both being scum at this point, there's too much of a fluid dynamic between them and it doesn't read as a distance tactic. Scum wouldn't make a strong commotion about a supposed "slip" like that, as far as I know. It's always a WIFOM, but this one seems like they would really have to be stretching it if they're distancing.

If I had to call it between them, I'd give it to Mykonian for scum. This assessment really bugs me:

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

This progression isn't logical at all. Panzer lying would definately make him anti-town, and anti-town behavior is beneficial to scum, therefore, if they are lying, and there is no benefit to the town in the dishonesty, it is a valid reason to suspect them of being scum. GIEFF believes this. To use his phrasing,

You have a case based on someone thinking that someone else is scum because they lied: HORRIBLE.

[Zilla]

Reading again on Mykonian, I rescind my prior notion that he and Panzer are mutually exclusive. It seems like it's been a one-way street and Panzer's been on Mykonian, and mykonian fails to really acknowledge this attack. That's a bus tactic. Since Mykonian is the one doing the sideways defense, I'm more suspect of him than Panzer at this point, because it's still possible he's just defending a townie who happens to be attacking him to try to alleviate that suspicion.

[Zilla]

I'm saying right now, no, I'm not going to forego commenting on the current game before finishing rereading, because this game is a mess. I know this stems from Panzer changing his tune about how he viewed your SK post. I know what I need to know. I think you guys don't even want to go back there because you don't even know what the case is about anymore. Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.

[Zilla]

honestly, if nobody is capable of posting a chronology, there are serious issues, and I think you guys don't even know seriously what is going on in this game. Other games I've been in have had no problem summarizing cases.

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Myk brings up that the SK is scum for wanting to lynch mafia. It's supposed to be a crazy justification for a bad vote, but everyone jumps on how poorly it is constructed. Also, the SK suggestion is taken very seriously by a few players.

Panzer gets caught up in the SK debate, DG and GIEFF debate over his opening post.

Things snowball.

Things snowball even more.

Panzer swtiches from considering Myk's opening post as serious to obviously a joke, GIEFF picks up on it, a wagon forms, Goat doesn't like the wagon because nobody seems to oppose it.

BB, SL, and Militant don't really say much.

I replace in, and because all these cases have been twisted every imaginable way, people jump on me for asking for a summary, because hey, it's easier to understand than any of the other cases around here.

I defend BB because he hadn't done anything scummy aside from a small lurking problem, and goat switched his vote for shallow reasons.

Lengthy debate over rereading vs summarizing.

Macavity is gone, suddenly nobody is going to be able to answer those standing accusations against him.

Myk performs chainsaw defense against GIEFF's allegations on Panzer.


I haven't seen much pro-town content from Myk and plenty of scummy content, my vote stands.

[Zilla]

Dour, you might be waiting quite a while for qwints. You would also be waiting a long time for me, if I didn't decide to get involved straight off .

i want to hear from SL, BB, and subgenius on Myk/Panzer.

[Zilla]

I have a feeling he was picking on me for saying Myk instead if militant. :/

Yes, town can have flawed logic, but when that logic's purpose is anti-town, that is scummy. Anti-town INTENT is scummy. Accidental anti-town behavior may not be. The nature of this case hinges on whether Panzer was lying or not, and since he was talking about his own motivations for voting Myk, I'm more likely to believe that he knew what we was doing.

There's also that Panzer was flipping the fuck out on me on a misconstruction, which doesn't help him in my opinion :/.

[Zilla]

First off, I get the feeling that Zilla's strategy is mostly about throwing a bucket of feces at the wall and waiting to see what sticks. How she could attack Goat so adamantly and with so many different accusations while fully admitting that her main motive for voting for him was because he didn't want to write a summary is amazing. I wouldn't call it scummy, but I wouldn't describe it as helpful either.

This whole town must hate accountability, and I'm oh-so-unhelpful for trying to get some. Lord, what a sin it is to attack someone reluctant to provide their own opinions. It can't be helpful at all to see if someone is being inconsistent, ESPECIALLY when that has already happened with Panzer, and especially given that people's opinions have suddenly and inexplicably changed at some points in this game.

Woe be to the person who wants to know where everyone stands, but fear them not, for they may be shunned if you merely tell them to "read the thread." You can go unaccountable as long as you wish.

I don't buy GIEFF's "townie" slip argument, it's a weak argument on a weak slip. I similarly don't buy the other argument of using words like "truly" and "honest." There's just too much difference in communication style from person to person for something that to be a scumtell, and I've never seen something like that actually point to scum.

I find it ironic Mykonian accuses Panzer of defending him, considering he's also covered for Panzer.

[Zilla]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.

[Zilla]

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

This isn't true in the slightest; any townie can draw incorrect conclusions and set up a mislynch, and lying for scum just puts them on the line and in the open later for searching later. I also disagree with the stance that "there are no good targets anymore," I think this game is full of them. Just about every player could have a rather solid case built against them.

Beyond Birthday hasn't participated and has numerous 'neutral' reads on people, as if he's setting up for ways to gain reputation depending on how the town views change.

Zilla refused to read the thread when she replaced in, and her predecessor had some "interesting" views.

Dourgrim was tunneling on GIEFF for a while and has gone lurking at some points.

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Goatrevolt constantly discusses meta and detracts from active scumhunting, while appearing to present an "aggressive" case that is actually based on very little actual information. Also refused very loudly to provide a summary of his opinion on the current state of the game.

qwints hasn't responded except to say he's reading the thread, and MacavityLock had some "interesting" opinions himself.

Militant has avoided a solid position on the centerstage players, leaving an out for him, and is the sole voter for ting=), which is still his random vote. I'd say he's an "active lurker."

Mykonian's conduct early game was sporadic and scummy, and his arguments generally are weak, and he's played defense for Panzer on logic that he hasn't explained (I'd like to hear why he thinks Panzer is clean). His vote is on Beyond Birthday for "being annoying" and having "too frequent of notes." Even his "scumhunting post" is full of uncommitted opinions that leave him easy ways out.

Panzer... Do I even need to say anything? The whole "reason for voting Myk" debacle, general jumpy conduct, poor logic, possible pairing with Myk, and a generally scummy playstyle (attempts at diffusing arguments by buddying, GIEFF's point about "I'll step down if you will," intent behind some posts)

SpringLulliby hasn't participated very much.

Subgenius hasn't really been committed on any stance he's given, and seems rather detatched from the main events.

Ting=) ... Not much to say about him aside from infrequent posting, but he's not really "lurking" and most of the time his posts have content. All I can say is that nobody has really looked too deeply into him.




This is not my standing on everyone, but an exercise to see where cases "can" be built, to show that scum don't even have to actively push for a lynch as long as a townie gets the wrong idea about someone.

[Zilla]

Jesus, I wasn't even talking about whether or not your summary request was valid. I'm just trying to say that tearing into a player like a pit bull with a laundry list of grievances while admitting that only one grievance actually has anything to do with the hostility isn't all that helpful. Neither is this unwarranted sarcasm.

Sorry, I got caught up in the "Zilla vs the world" mentality that everyone thought my request was stupid/scummy, and I basically got a bit enraged that I was being called it again, when you were just talking about my reaction to GoatRevolt.

Really, though, I'm only sorry about the GoatRevotl thing insofar as that I didn't do it to everyone who said the same thing. It was unfair of me to really single him out over it when he was assisted in that by Mykonian and Beyond Birthday.

I'm not so interested in whether or not it's ironic. Do you think it's scummy? Was Mykonian trying to nudge his scum partner away from defending him too much?

Yes on the scummy, not necessarily on the "nudge his scum partner." Just about any time I say "Isn't this ironic/strange/inconsistent" it's implying I think it's scummy. I don't think it's neccesarily a motion to a scum partner so much as trying to shake the image that they are paired by accusing Panzer of chainsaw defense. The inconsistency is that if you read Myk in isolation, he's played the whole game defending Panzer.

[Zilla]

Myk's SK-slip and chainsaw defense of Panzer, and the inherent interactions between Myk and Panzer.

Funny how people listen to Dour .

Also, Dour, I have to say your reasons for voting GIEFF aren't very good. I, too, think some of his points aren't right and that his case is a bit bloated, but I don't think that's a good reason to vote him. I also agree that the Dourscum thing is VERY dubious as far as a mistake goes, but also, it's not worthy of a vote, no matter how little I believe that it was a "slip."

[Zilla]

EBWOP: Also Myk's reaction to my request for a summary (seems subgenius is now in support too.)

[Zilla]

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

[Zilla]

First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum." Since my lack of scum hunting is a legitimate point, I will make no attempt to defend that. I have been lazy, which is not an excuse so I have no response.

I disagree. I think the role of a townie involves doing both (although looking pro-town is often directly associated with catching scum). Regardless, this isn't relevant. Moving on...

Meta, but you catch yourself.

Point 1: BB may have jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of opportunity.
This is incorrect, and in fact allowing myself a mild amount of wifom, I think I would ride the wagon as long as I could and be talked of unvoting. As a scum partner, this would be perfect for distancing.
Point 2: He may have jumped off townie now unable to justify his vote.
Meh, counter productive scum play. Better is to defend Panzer, which my last posts does (oh noes! I have proven myself doing something scummy!)

I'm going to ignore these for now, because they aren't relevant to the discussion of "why did you."

They aren't?

I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)

And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?

Seems like a misconstruing of his reasons for changing his mind about Panzer, misrepresentation ++.

To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.

Really? this very post begs to differ entirely with your assessment that he's disagreed with GIEFF. Note how he generally agrees with GIEFF in theory, but debates the finer points, and in a lot of cases, calls GIEFF out for not going far enough.

Now, you are saying the attacks bore no fruit, suggesting that you don't think GIEFF and Panzer's back and forth produced anything useful. And you're voting on GIEFF's logic, despite saying his back and forth bore no fruit? And then, you even go so far to say Panzer looked like a victimized townie. Interesting how your vote was on the victimized townie.

Do you have no sense of chronology? You're misrepresenting his stance entirely by trying to make it look like he had that viewpoint all along, when he clearly developed the "victimized townie" feel after Panzer's posts, which BB has already clearly stated himself.

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand.

This is crucial. You don't fully understand, and this is why your case is weak.

I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.

2. You voted Panzer because of GIEFF's reasons for thinking Panzer was scum.

I'm guessing number 2 was your reason here, but I'll address either possibility.

1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.

2. You voted based on GIEFF's reasons for suspecting Panzer. I'm going to ignore for one second the fact that you never mentioned this when you voted for Panzer and haven't suggested this at all in the thread and that your constant disagreement with GIEFF suggests the unlikelihood you would barn his reasoning.

Your case here is based on a faulty premise and faulty conclusions, but really, just reading over Birthday's HUGE vote post should clear this all up.

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:

I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.

Oh snap!

Taken out of context from this:

Not really, but since I am currently debating on the validity of the Pan wagon, I no longer feel comfortable leaving my vote there. I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions. (I prefer voting to FoS, and if I vote someone, I usually don't have an issue with their lynch.)

Now, to address your summary of BB:

Lack of scumhunting: Admittedly not a huge selling point on its own, however I think it does add to the case when you also consider the scumminess of the rest of his play. Furthermore, he has constantly suggested that you shouldn't try to appear pro-town, you should try to find scum and let that do the talking. He's made no efforts to find the scum

I just don't see where this is warranted; he points out inconsistencies, especially on GIEFF, some on Mykonian and myself, and in general, his posts contain substance. His lack of constant posting however makes him less effective, so I can give you that his hunting isn't turning much up, but don't confuse the lack of impact with a lack of trying.

Lack of solid stances: This is self-explanatory, really. He simply hasn't made solid stances this game. Look back through and see a lot of theory discussion, a lot of "you're wrong" or "this is stupid" and precious little, "I think you are scum."

I agree with this. He doesn't assess people on whether they are scum or town but whether they are doing it right or wrong.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon: Read this post. To summarize: He made a weak vote to get on the Panzer wagon, and has suggested his vote was based off of GIEFF's reasons long after the fact, despite the fact that all evidence suggests this to not be true. He jumped off the Panzer wagon based on weak reasoning, and reasoning that show his initial voting reasons were really poor. He mentioned that he didn't think Panzer was going to be a lynch, despite placing the 4th vote on the wagon, having a 5th vote accumulate on the wagon, posting many times while keeping his vote on the 5/7 wagon (with others expressing suspicion and willingness to vote Panzer), suggesting clues about mykonian's alignment based on Panzer's alignment, and saying himself that every vote after the random stage should be a vote for a lynch.

So yeah, I think he's scum.

Again, I totally don't get the same impression and you're either willfully or unknowingly taking evidence out of context.

Yeah, call it chainsaw if you like, but I'm explaining why I don't buy your case.

[Zilla]

And Zilla continues to ignore or brush aside what I say.

making a huge post, but I felt that was needed. I haven't seen the posts in between mine yet, addressing them now...

[Zilla]

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

First: Have you read my posts? My case on Mykonian?

Second: Why was I able to defend you better than you could defend yourself?

Third: This whole post of yours suddenly makes me far more suspicious of you than previously, considering I must have read you entirely wrong because your stated reasons

in that very post

contradict what I thought of you to begin with. Clearly I was wrong in my opinion...

@ GIEFF: I'm not as suspicious of Panzer as I am of Myk, if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum. As far as "likely to be paired with Myk, if Myk is scum," I'd say it's up in the air between the two, and it depends on what level they are operating. On face value, we have Goat defending Myk via chainsaw, and Panzer attacking Myk early-mid day, so at face value, Goat is more likely by a long shot. It's possible they are all three together, hence Goat...

Wait a minute, Goat's stance on Panzer is a bit suspicious as well.

Goat, would you please give a current account of your stance on Panzer?

[Zilla]

I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

Do you think Birthday scum says anything about Panzer, or vice versa? Do you think Myk, Birthday, and Panzer are the scum trio, or is it exclusive between them, or somewhere in the middle?

[Zilla]

Oh, wow....

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things,

he reaches the right conclusions

and at least considers the right reasons.)

Is this an admission?

I personally don't see a link between Myk and BB, and I still feel Myk is scum, so I'm not ready to move yet, but if I can find a link between Myk and BB, or if Myk somehow absolves himself, or if it comes down to deadline and Myk isn't a valid lynch choice, I'll be moving my vote.

[Zilla]

I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

Do you think Birthday scum says anything about Panzer, or vice versa? Do you think Myk, Birthday, and Panzer are the scum trio, or is it exclusive between them, or somewhere in the middle?

Please to answer?

[Zilla]

He ninja-posted a behemoth of his own that undercut my entire foundation, and basicaly was a slap to the face telling me my entire read on him was wrong.

If he'd answered the same way I had, and verified my read on him, he would still be where he was before. Instead, he systematically destroyed my entire view on why he did the things he's done.

[Zilla]

Give me a bit, this will be a big post...

[Zilla]

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.

First off, he meant the slip where he used the word "townie." Misrepresentation ++, suspicion ++.

Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?

Speaking of blatantly wrong, that's four people, dejkha was my predecessor. And where did GIEFF say he thought I was scum? Misrep++, suspicion++.

I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

Taking a phrase out of context, misrep++, suspicion++.

Your answers strike me as someone desperate to try to prove me wrong rather than someone genuinely trying to understand my point, which I don't think is so complicated that it should need repeating as many times as I have had to repeat it.

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

Defiant, unhelpful, and avoiding answer, suspicion++.

Now, onto the real meat.

Nowhere in your reasoning here do I see any mention whatsoever of GIEFF's points.

Good, now add this to:

Wait, what? I found out what you were talking about by reading that post, and you did indeed list reasons you agreed with GIEFF. Now you're saying that Goat's right? Confidence in my perception of Birthday--, suspicion++.

I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)

And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?

To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much.

Where did this suddenly come from? This statement, coming from left field, really had me questioning my read on BB.

Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Focusing on the "You just picked out the wrong reasons," it's entirely strange that he says this. In fact, this whole quote is strange. He's basically saying Goat's case is valid, which contradicts my view on how Goat's case was invalid.

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.


1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon.

I agree that BB was using GIEFF's logic, but I thought it made sense. BB is now campaigning to say that it didn't, odd behavior at best.

However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:

First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest).

By this point, I was already entirely convinced what I thought I knew about BB was wrong. He's basically saying that his vote on Panzer was a move to draw out scum, but that he didn't actually want to lynch Panzer. Admirable to say now, but I find it a little to convenient, given that it now contradicts BOTH his previously stated reasons for voting Panzer.

I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.

Here, he again pulls a switchback and says the reasons may have been wrong, but that Goat is actually right. Potentially, he's trying to nullify his case by taking ownership of it because he doesn't actually have a real defense.


Due to how he answered the next, my responses will be

underlined.

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

You just said you didn't vote Panzer for an actual reason, you said you were actually parroting GIEFF. Essentially, this validates Goat's point.

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

This reads as "You're wrong. I have a lack of solid stances because I don't have solid stances yet. Here's some distracting terminology that doesn't really address the actual accusation."

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

More "Your case is valid." response

[/quote]

This whole section was quite intriguing to me, as I had thought those four points invalid, mostly from his long vote post. Suddenly, he turns it around by saying that those points are entirely valid.

I believe I've already addressed his closing statements.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

Actually, it was because I was initially very dubious of Goat pushing on BB, especially when his entire stated reasons were three things I didn't really see or agree with, and especially because his case seemed really weak. I looked into his case on BB and I didn't see what he was talking about aside from the uncommitted stances, and I missed the retraction about his motivation for voting Panzer, if he had even made that by that point, so all those factors had me thinking the case was pretty bad. Now, however, BB seems to acknowledge that the case was actually solid, and, most importantly,

reaches the right conclusions

.

[Zilla]

Panzer didn't read this post.

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

I see where you got that out of:

(seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

I'm talking about the

argument

over the SK thing, specifically the parts where people say the SK knows who the mafia are, whether or not the SK is more desirable for a lynch, etc. The debate over it got very pointless, very fast.

I also said this:

The SK thing was stupid, the first person who said "SK" might be the SK if there even is an SK, but beyond that, that whole argument has gotten way out of hand.

Mykonian does not answer my [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 72#1487372]large post detailing my case against him.[/quote]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.

Goat completely missed the point of my probe:

Wait a minute, Goat's stance on Panzer is a bit suspicious as well.

Goat, would you please give a

current account

of your stance on Panzer?

If I am to believe your stance is the same as it was in post 240,

FOS: Goatrevolt

. You're critical of nobody defending panzer, so

you're defending panzer

, all the while trying to admit that he looks scummy. It's tough to specualte without knowing Panzer's alignment, but it looks like a convienient and soft defense overall, in case he actually does flip scum. The very cautionary stance adopted here is highly suspect.

Myk needs to answer, militant, SL, ting=), and qwints need to participate.

[Zilla]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage

This is true. I'm suspicious of some of the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer. Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).

I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally, I did not find it conclusive, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.

So here we have a summary showing why he suspects panzer, but he has yet to explain why he hasn't voted for him. That's coming up:

I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now. I think Panzer has been scummy, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet. Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle. I want to scour the thread first and try to get a better feel. Furthermore, I'm still suspicious of MacavityLock's transformation from "Panzer is SK to Panzer is also top pick for mafia" and I want him to answer my questions. Hearing from Zilla would also be good.

Ah, so he "doesn't want day to end yet," and he is attacking MacavityLock, who had been attacking Panzer, and also only Mykonian is defending Panzer.

If you scum radar is tuned properly, you should be detecting a large blip onscreen.

Also, note after this that he attacks Panzer, with this:

Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him

slips were minor tells

Really? What changed? Compare the above bolded to the below from early game:

I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.

So, basically, he has a plethora of reasons to vote Panzer, but he won't vote Panzer because only Mykonian is defending him (hmm.. Panzer, Mykonian, and Goat?), and he "doesn't want the day to end yet." Panzer is no longer top vote getter, and it comes down to his vote on Beyond Birthday. When asked for a current account (now having two opportunities to respond), he instead points to his outdated assessment, that no longer holds weight.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

[Zilla]

Goat is softly defensive of Panzer while trying to maintain that he thinks he's scummy, he shares the antagonistic streak with BB, he's hyperreactive as soon as anyone says ANYTHING about him is suspicious, he constantly deflects and refuses to answer point blank questions, his arguments are sidetracking, and a lot of his "aggressive" play is only superficially aggressive.

My main case is on Mykonian who I already answered for, please don't misrepresent me as dodging Dourgrim's request, I was one of the first to answer his call.

[Zilla]

If myk is "suspicious of me" that's news to me, but that's to be expected from panzer, I guess.

[Zilla]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

I've told you already. This is how I play mafia.

Dodging questions?

When someone attacks me, I defend it and I do so thoroughly. This is why I've never been lynched as town before, because when someone brings up a reason to believe I'm scum, I point out why it's wrong. I also, as I've said, catch scum based on how they attack me. You are starting to move towards the scum spectrum based on the increasing illogical and absurd nature of your attacks. You have completely failed to address or even explain why me "aggressively defending" myself is scummy whatsoever. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

Yet to address the panzer question, and you demonstrate the sidetracking aspect of your play right here. I did already answer the "aggressively defensive" question already; town don't overreact to scrutiny, scum do. Scum want to shut down any possible means of convicting them at an exaggerated cost, while town go about diffusing their accusations in a different, usually softer way. I've said this before, you're misrepresenting again, which brings up the next point.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with.

Another fine example of misrepresentation. Please point to where I agreed that my "entire reason for voting [you] was frustration." I never said it was based on frustration, and I denied it and explained every time that it was from the scummy nature of not wanting to be accountable. Thank you for demonstrating my point though.

With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you.

This is what I call misrepresentation. I listed very concisely why, and you call it "cutting through the horrible reasons." I call it "Spinning it to make me look scummy."

You declined to comment

Oh?
Really?
Did I?

except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.

Nevermind that you have been implicitly defending panzer all day while you say one thing and do another. You've called him scummy but NEVER HAVE YOU VOTED PANZER, especially when the stated reasons you weren't voting panzer to begin with have been removed.

You accuse me of dodging questions. I have not dodged a single question all game.

POINT BLANK QUESTION:
What is your current view on panzer?

However, you've done a bit of dodging and deflection. Yes, that's right, I'm calling you out. This is the point where you turn around and say how my playstyle is scummy because I'm turning it back on you. Deal with it.

Why thank you for putting words in my reply box, continuing to misrepresent me.

Here's what I mean: Throughout this game, you've continued to attack me for poor reasons.

That's subjective.

I've defended myself against those reasons. No problems so far. Then, you ignore my defense (in essence, proving me right),

Where's the logic in that, and also, don't be a hypocrite when you've clearly ignored half my posts (see preceding links and rebuttals).

and instead attack me for being too hypersensitive,

an establish scum tell

or for defending myself too aggressively, or some other bullshit you use to justify your unjustifiable suspicion.

You know, aside from the valid point that you

STILL

have not answered the question that I have asked when you have had FOUR TIMES to do so.

That's deflection. That's dodgy.

And just what accusations have I been deflecting from? You say I've ignored your defense, but what attack of yours have I ignored? What attacks have I "deflected" from? Another misrepresentation, to prove my point again, but I'm guessing that unless I include this intentionally hypocritical phrase,

you're just going to ignore it and deflect again

.

You attack me, which prompts me to defend myself. Then you say I'm scummy for defending myself, completely ignoring the weak reason you used to attack me in the first place.

First off, I'm not satisfied with your continued attempts to avoid being accountable, and that is STILL one of my main reasons for suspecting you, and it is not a weak case.

Second, I am not attacking only for defending yourself but the manner in which you are defending yourself, that is specifically scummy. Your attempt at generalization to reduce my arguement (and again misrepresent my case) should be noted.

As for your assertion that I haven't answered your question. I have answered it. I answered it immediately when you asked it. I linked to a fairly recent post that provides my opinion on Panzer that has not changed since when you had last asked me.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked what you currently thought of panzer. I want an original statement from you right now that you can be held accountable for on where you stand on Panzer. The only reason I can think that you continue to link to your "both sides of the fence" stance that I

FOS'd

you for is that you know it will be politically risky to say anything definite about panzer.

That post is my current opinion on Panzer.

Than my FOS stands, for the stated reasons.

And then I see you took a completely different post and just attacked it. You asked for my current opinion on Panzer. I provided a link to a post that gave my current opinion on Panzer. Then you attack a completely different post. Zilla, the misrep is all you.

Your linked posts' opinion on panzer was entirely taken from 240, Mister Misrep. Everything else in that post said nothing.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

And this is weak, weak, weak. Your entire means of scum hunting is based on pairing players. Pairing players is dumb, meaningless, ineffective unless one of those players is dead.

A perfect ploy for scum to push, especially given the climate. Pairing living players is never an exercise in futility; in fact I would have won one of my first games here if I had continued that line of inquiry instead of abandoning it

at the behest of the mafioso that I had paired

.

For example, you think I'm scummy based on ties to Mykonian and Panzer.

Among other things.

I assume you mean if Mykonian and Panzer are scum it increases the chances that I am also scum. However, that is invalid, and useless suspicion until you know the alignments of Panzer and Mykonian, which you don't, unless you're scum.

It's not invalid and useless speculation at all. It's answered by the very first part of this quote block;

if

Mykonian and Panzer are scum, it

increases the chances

that you are also scum. how is that useless suspicion? The only reason I can see why you're trying to discredit this line of reasoning is because it is entirely valid and you are trying to lay some ground to argue your way out of it. You do not address that you are, in fact, defending Mykonian and Panzer, and that their alignment will certainly say a lot about yours.

So, to boil it down. Your suspicion on me is based on this:

Misrepresentation, HO!

1. Ties to players who's alignments you cannot know unless you're scum.

Yes. I don't have to know them to set up the contingency that if they are scum, you are also likely scum.

2. I defend myself against your accusations.

Thank you for giving a textbook half-truth. You defend yourself in a manner analogous to scum defending themselves.

3. You don't like my playstyle

Where did this come from, unless by "my playstyle" you mean "my penchant to dodge questions like a well-versed politician, my method of 'scumhunting' being based on 'how people attack me,' my ability to misconstrue and warp those attacks, and my middle-management-esque ability to shirk accountability." If that's what you meant, then, yes, I don't like your playstyle, because it's scummy, and if you are town, you're jamming my radar.

This is the point where Zilla goes nuts because I again am defending against her accusations in such a "hypersensitive" way, and there is a likely chance she ignores what I actually say in favor of just attacking me for defending myself.

This is the point where Goat engages in the quote war, tries to generalize and warp my arguments, ignores half my posts and the meaning behind my points and instead whittles it to Semantics, uses emotional language (I'm also guilty, I'll freely admit) to escalate conflict, and still doesn't answer the question: What is his current view on panzer?

I'll address other questions in my next post,

for a change?

I just had to clear this up first.

Or attempt to muddy the waters, it seems.

[Zilla]

Right now, she's 50/50 to me. She was at the top of my town list a while back, but the manner in which she continues to assault me with bad logic, and then call me scummy when I defend myself (but yet she ignores my actual defenses, likely because she knows I'm right) has struck me as scummy.

Then you know where I'm coming from when you misconstrue nearly all of my points.


And here we go with your famous letter-based analogies:

If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.

If A is the initial case of you avoiding accountability, I'm still arguing that with you, but you're saying I'm "brushing it aside" simply because you haven't actually answered the initial accusation, which has further been supported by, again, your lack of answer to the point-blank question of what your current view on panzer is. I suppose if you thought you had provided what I'd asked for by linking your older post, I'd be more understanding, but I give you more credit than that, and I would think you know exactly how that benefits you in the realm of being unaccountable. Perhaps I actually was wrong, but that lowers my opinion of your integrity quite a bit.

If B is the reaction to the defense, that is your entire method of scumhunting. You say you catch scum based on their method of attack, and in fact, you accuse me of being scum based on my method of attack. How is that different from me accusing you of being scum based on your method of defense?

In essence, as of late, I don't get the impression she's actually trying to determine whether or not I'm scum.

You mean I'm not receptive to your 'arguments?' This falls into the same category that BB outlined, saying that you're suspecting me for disagreeing with you. I find that just about every "defense" you've offered has been based on a misunderstanding or a misconstruction of events, and so I've had to amend inconsistencies. Instead of answering those inconsistencies, you do exactly as you accused me of and instead move on to another argument.

I get the impression she's trying to push the idea that I'm scum.

You mean I'm pushing a case? *GASP* ONLY SCUM CAN DO THAT!

She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others.

I dare you to find an example where I outright ignore something, rather show your inconsistent behavior.

She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.

So far, your defenses have matched what scum would do in the same situation. There's town defending themselves, and scum defending themselves. The myraid of misinformation in your posts highly contributes to your defense being scummy. You go so far in defending yourself that you skew facts, again like a guilty politician.

There was a point near the end of our initial debacle where you had me convinced you were town, but, similar to your view on me, my view on you has changed. You use destructive language to prolong conflict and attempt to reap benefit from the prolonged conflict by saying that I'm no longer trying to 'determine whether you are scum.' It's entirely likely that you shut down any mode of convincing me otherwise when you resort to such a confrontational presentation of your defense.

[Zilla]

@ Dour: I was afraid of that kind of reaction to quote-warring, I know that's why I didn't really bother reading between you and GIEFF. It's tough to remain thorough in a different style though, and I really do believe I've raised some good points in there.

It's a hard thing to change, especially in this type of conflict. Sorry for the simulpost in which I continue to do the same. :/

It's especially hard when so many of Goat's points involve altering the past, and really need correcting. I can't just let falsehood stand, and if I don't challenge him, there's the risk that his misinterpretations are to be believed, regardless of if he posted them as town or scum, and that's a bad thing.

Regardless of ANY of this, I still want goat to explicitly say his view on panzer, not just saying "it's the same as 'this'." He's clearly shown he has the energy to debate minutia at length, he should be able to provide his view on panzer without too much fuss.

[Zilla]

Myk hasn't answered standing accusations, I don't want to move my vote just because he's lurking. This is a long standing principle of mine. The difference between my case on myk and my case on goat is that goat is answering his accusations (even if poorly), and so I can actually debate with him. Rest assured, when Myk answers, I'll probably continue to lay into him as hard, if not harder than I'm laying into Goat, but at this point, it's fruitless to beat a dead horse and recite my case against an unresponsive Myk.

I don't usually ascribe to lynching the loudest target. It's the lurky type that really bug me, and I'm wary of being led astray just because someone else is more vocal.

I do agree that lynching Birthday gives us less information than lynching panzer. I think Mykonian is a better candidate between he and Panzer, since, if only one of them is scum, I would think it to be Myk, and the only person Myk doesn't tell us about that panzer does would be GIEFF, and I don't have particular interest in GIEFF at this point.

[Zilla]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

While you were attacking me, your vote didn't follow. I reacted to your aggressiveness by saying something like, "vote me, if you are so sure", so we don't get the attacks from you until the bandwagon is filled enough that there is no risk for you anymore.

I am totally oblivious to what you're trying to sell here. There was very, VERY little change in the vote count between when you asked me to vote you and when I actually did. Goat voted Birthday. I'm sorry that it's possible I suspect more than one person at a time and I only have one vote, rest assured if I had more votes, I would have voted you then.

It was for a random vote, nothing serious. Just wait what happens night 1 before we get serious talk about a SK. I never intended to get big talks about it, but other people are making something out of my words that they were not.

Regardless of it being random or not, and faulty logic aside, you brought up an SK, and that in itself affects the perception of the game. Subsequently, you debate the validity of searching for an SK when we don't even know if one exists. Those two things together, in an atmosphere where we don't even know if there is an SK, are inherently scummy, as it provides a distraction from a given scum faction; the mafia. This logic applies to MacavityLock as well.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

no reason for you to take a random vote reason serious.

This is beyond the random vote reason and into the paradigm behind joking about GIEFF being an SK and why he should be lynched.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

when you listen to it as were it serious.

Au contraire, I'm well aware it was made in jest; however, the method is suspect.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

I put in a logical error in my random vote, I expect people to vote me. Someone goes even further and attacks me for the SK business: I didn't expect that. But anyway, nothing unnatural there.

The defense of Panzer beyond his vote for you is still unnatural. I'll ask you the same thing I asked goat: what is your current view of panzer, all things considered?

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

First time I read this. Sorry. But don't expect from me that I put myself in the spotlight. Attention on me is not usefull and antitown. So asking for it would be foolish.

By which I mean you never actually attack anybody, but play devil's advocate, and worse, you're actually playing "angel's advocate" by being defensive of others rather than offensive. It's a common day 1 scum tactic, it builds trust.



--------------

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.

[Zilla]

I may have changed my mind about the entire SK debate; it's quite telling, and will definitely be even more useful after night 1. The argument has aged well. Perhaps just reading it all in one sitting and trying to keep it in mind while still taking in all the other crazy page 3-7 debates made it seem just as trivial. Now that I can actually read those pages and know who is talking about who, the debate over the SK allegations may be the strongest thing we have from early game.

It was a lot worse when everyone was a faceless entity with a shaky trail. It really helps now that I know the players (except qwints/MacavityLock and Spring Lulliby, they have been conspicuously absent most of the game).

[Zilla]

finally, after two pages of asking, Goat delivers.

Dour splits his post up very nicely for reference.

I don't agree with part 4 and 5, and panzer similarly disagrees (though he wants to save himself anyway). This is the soft defense of Panzer I had been talking about. Parts 1 and 3 say he legitimately suspects Panzer, behind BB and MacavityLock/qwints. BB has been quite adequately explained and not much has changed on Macavity/qwints. The thing worth noting is how parts 2, 4, and 5 seem to take the stance that he's town on completely subjective guesswork.

We'll disagree on this also (cue tape to "don't pair living people"), but it looks indicative of scum trying to cover for a partner without justification. At the very least, figuring out panzer's alignment would either validate or invalidate that theory.

Mykonian has been giving 50% satisfying answers. I'll have to give him that a lot of the evidene of the SK thing is speculative, though I happen to agree with a lot of the speculation involved. I still believe it's sound reasoning to think that the mafia benefits from introducing an SK, and starting a witchhunt for a serial killer. It's impossible to prove this is what he was doing with that first post or not.

Seeing his playstyle, I'm also going to have to concede the "he asked me to" point, as it looks like he's not a very serious player to begin with... *sigh.*

There still is the "chainsaw defense" he has for panzer, and his "angel's advocate" stance though. The problem is that these, too, are speculation, and disagreements in playstyle. I consider them to be scummy, but it's still possible to come from town.

I'm thinking Mykonian just isn't going to be a valid lynch today. Day 1, where we have no solid information on anybody, is hard to establish a working framework for.

That being said, I'm pretty sure Panzer will establish that framework, and I am suspicious of him. However, I am more directly suspicious of Beyond Birthday.

I think we still need to hear from lurkers, but my course of action is no longer clear. I'm keeping my vote on Mykonian as I still suspect him, if only on speculative reasons, while I reconsider who I suspect the most.

I will say, though it may be dangerous to assume such, that GIEFF and Dour are pretty pro-town right now. Both are last on my suspect list.

[Zilla]

Number two is not based on subjective guesswork, but on

my own personal feelings

subjective

about Panzer's play being genuine.

guesswork

Along those lines, why do YOU think Panzer is town?

I never said I thought he was town. The only people I think are town are GIEFF and Dourgrim. If you mean why am I not voting him, it's because between Myk and Panzer, I think Myk is more likely to be scum, just based on their interactions. As I've said before, if only one of them is scum, I'm more certain it'd be Myk.

Number 4 and 5 explain how it's a bad idea if he is town, and how it's a meaningless gesture if he's scum. If he's town, it's bad. If he's scum, then we would be equally as good off if we lynch for scum. It's my way of saying how lynching for information is strictly a poor idea. Nowhere do I assume he's town. I'm only defending him so far as defending against bad ideas that happen to relate to him. If someone suggests we lynch BB because his name is annoying to type out, I would defend him against that accusation, despite still thinking BB is scum.

The BB example is strawmanning, and attacking a completely irrelevant case. Lynching Panzer will give us perhaps the most information (solely because GIEFF is more accountable for Panzer than Myk, otherwise, I'd say they are tied), and information is a good thing.

It's the very rare game that day 1 lynches scum, so lynching for information is perfectly valid.

[Zilla]

Zilla, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, what does that say about GIEFF? If we lynch Panzer and he is scum, what does that say about GIEFF?

This is Dourgrim's case, since GIEFF was more directly associated with motioning to lynching panzer. From what I get out of Dour's case, if Panzer's town, GIEFF has a higher chance of being scum. If Panzer is scum, GIEFF has a higher chance of being town. Allegations are lodged that GIEFF was tunneling on Panzer, so to those that hold that to be true, Panzer's alignment would help establish the motivation behind that.

I personally don't think GIEFF has been tunneling, which means, to me, Panzer's alignment won't have as much impact on GIEFF's.

[Zilla]

My question is then: What do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town? I want specifics. Is lynching a town Panzer going to help us find scum in any way? Why, how, and who?

This is partially why I think Myk is a better candidate than Panzer. Town panzer won't be as solid as town-myk, in my opinion. I personally think a town panzer doesn't clear anyone, since most of his defenders are treating him as if he is confirmed town (you, Mykonian). And don't tell me that you'd been aggressive on panzer, you're saying one thing and doing another in this regard, and all your actual actions seem to indicate you think he is town, even though your words sometimes say otherwise. The problem is that the people who are treating him as confirmed town could be doing it to protect a scumbuddy as much as they are doing it to buddy up to town.

Town Panzer would help us analyze whether his defenders were defending him because they

thought

he was town or because they

knew

he was town, rather than leaving it open to speculation on if his defenders are trying to defend a buddy. Revealing the specifics of who falls into which category is harmful and pointless at this point, and potentially destroys sources of information.

You're awfully adamant that Panzer is town, and you're trying to construct it as if lynching him is entirely a bad idea because he might be town, ascribing that apparently everybody wants to lynch him for information. The information case is basically a selling point that makes him more attractive than a Beyond Birthday vote, because if he's scum, it certainly implicates others to help find more scum. I don't know who we would follow up on for BB being scum.

[Zilla]

So hey, I took a peek over at GIEFF vs Dourgrim, and too much of it is too familiar... It's me and Goat all over again.

[Zilla]

@ GIEFF:

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of

your

lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch? Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself

be

a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone. The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

I'm thinking Panzer is the right choice for today's lynch. However,

before we start voting,

I want to hear the lurkers' opinions on my logic, and I want to hear from GIEFF (who has been strangely absent today), Goatrevolt, and (brace yourselves) mykonian. I think myko's reaction to this could be key, and so I urge the Town to not lynch anyone until we've gotten a clear, detailed answer from him.

Make sense?

Nothing that implicates Dour, if you're looking for that. There's minor points I disagree with, in that I think Mykonian is better to lynch than panzer, but his post isn't inconsistent in logic, and I think you're not understanding some of his points that he's defending. In the goat/Zilla analogy, I'd say you're goat and Dour's Zilla .

Oh, there's the "lynching GIEFF won't give us info on anyone" because if GIEFF is scum, I'd say that clears up Panzer a bit.

[quote="goatrevolt]However, how does that affect the actual likelihood of them being scum, and how is that relevant to who we choose to lynch?[/quote]

I don't think we're talking about the same point here; If BB and Panzer are both looking equally scummy, Panzer is the better choice because his lynch gives us more information, given an equal chance between BB and Panzer flipping scum. Town Panzer still gives us more info than town Birthday, and scum Panzer definately gives us more info than scum Birthday. Nobody is suggesting that the possibility for information affects their chance of flipping scum, but that knowing Panzer's alignment is more helpful than knowing Birthday's.

I think town-panzer might actually give us more information than scum-birthday. While, in retrospect, it's always better to lynch scum, we don't know their alignments...


OH...

BUT YOU DO!

unvote: Mykonian
Vote: Goatrevolt

This is the only thing that explains your mindset. You know their respective alignments, hence why you're having trouble understanding how their added information helps town, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.

*cue emotion-driven response from Goat*

[Zilla]

The deal is that he's treating it as if we already know their alignments, so of course we wouldn't gain any information by lynching them. This entire mindset only makes sense from a scum standpoint, as they DO know the alignments.

Drop the Goat thing, already. He's not getting lynched today. Your pages and pages of arguing about nothing is very anti-town and is distracting us from our lynch decision.

i.e. Don't look at the man behind the curtain. Shoo, shoo.

Telling me who not to argue is anti-town, and is distracting me from my vote decision.

[Zilla]

One question for you: Why do you think Birthday is town?

Where the HELL do you get the opinion I think Birthday is town? Quit trying to ascribe these opinions to me.

[Zilla]

And no, I don't know their alignments. I understand how Panzer's lynch can generate useful information. I don't think that information is in any way, shape, or form enough to base a lynch off of.

Who is basing their lynch case off of it?

[Zilla]

Also, yet again, you are assuming Birthday is confirmed scum and Panzer is confirmed town and that we have a clear choice between lynching scum and lynching town. This is where the scum-mindset is asserting itself, you somehow think it's a clear decision between the two. You constantly try to back your case up by eliminating the argument that "Panzer could be scum." I suspect that's because you already know Panzer's alignment.

[Zilla]

New evidence, new argument, new case. Attempting to pit your reputation behind your words only harms your reputation to me, and I REALLY don't like how you are calling people who are valid lynch candidates.

[Zilla]

Also, the same could EASILY be said about you and Dourgrim.

[Zilla]

Irony noted.

Guys, asking for what specific information a lynch will give beforehand is eating unripened fruit. If you really want to know, I'd say scum goat means scum panzer and scum mykonian, and town birthday, because goat's playing way too heated to not be sincere about his connections. Town goat implicates Birthday and slightly absolves Panzer and Mykonian, though I scum-goat explains a TON more than town-goat does; hence why I think he's a valid target. Scum-goat fits as far as where his connections and observations come from.

Also GIEFF, my lastest post with Goat's "on a completely different subject than our original back-and-forth."

Didn't I already answer town-panzer?

Town Panzer would help us analyze whether his defenders were defending him because they thought he was town or because they knew he was town, rather than leaving it open to speculation on if his defenders are trying to defend a buddy. Revealing the specifics of who falls into which category is harmful and pointless at this point, and potentially destroys sources of information.

You want specifics, I think it adds suspicion to your case, and marginally clears Myk and Goat.

Scum-Birthday... Basically helps Goat a bit, but I don't see much aside from that. Hence why I don't see much information from a Birthday lynch.

Goat's flip is rather analogous with Myk's flip, with the added extention of Birthday, so yes, there's more info to be had from Goat's flip.

[Zilla]

First, in strict terms of scumminess, BB is hovering around 75% for me, and I would not be disappointed with his lynch. I'm not voting him because it's not near deeadline and I believe I've got more valid targets to pursue.

scum-goat explains a TON more than town-goat does; hence why I think he's a valid target.

I disagree whole-heartedly. So if Goat comes up town, we're screwed, basically?

Where does this come from? I'm saying that scum-goat makes a ton more sense than town-goat, it explains how he's been behaving, distracting, defending, and possibly distancing.

If we lynch a scum, we don't NEED any more information for it to have been a successful lynch.

True, which is why I want to lynch goat in the first place. As an addendum though, extra information helps "clean up." and I'd rather lynch scum that you can follow up on than dead-end scum.

If you want to play the lynch-for-information angle,

Which I'm not, and never have, I just had to try to explain the logic behind it to Goat.

it should at the very least be a way to hedge our bets, i.e. if we do happen o lynch town, at least the towniness of that poster would give us a lot of information.

You're saying it wouldn't?

How many player-links do you (Dourgrim and Zilla) need to make him a better lynch than Panzer?

I think he's a better lynch than panzer in spite of the links Panzer offers. You're trying to construe it as only lynching for information, just like Goat did on the panzer case himself.

[Zilla]

Dourgrim, you're going to hate this post, but Goat's at it again: Misrepresentations that I've already corrected are being asserted YET AGAIN. Defense by twisting the attacker's case is scummy, and he's done it every time I've built a case.

I looked into the meta of BB and Zilla somewhat last night. I don't feel I learned a whole lot. BB's play in this game is different than his play in both town games he's had (except the common factor: Slicing of wrists), but without a scum game to compare to, I don't see it as all that conclusive. The only game I looked through of Zilla's was a game where she was scum. She was much more passive and less confrontational in that game than she has been here. I should also look through a town game of hers and see if I can get any kind of useful picture.

Most of my mafia history is offsite, though I have two town games (three town incarnations due to replacing back into Family Guy after death) on this site.

I'm reneging on my earlier assessment of Zilla-town.

Big surprise, whenever my points on you are unsawerable, you put this back in your argument.

She's back in the 50/50 mix for me. While I think her aggressiveness suggests she is pro-town, her stances have been questionable. I'm hesitant to just give her a pass based on aggressiveness and the appearance of scumhunting alone. Case in point: She attacks me entirely because I opposed her "give me a summary" stance.

I didn't have a RVS, you know, I had to start somewhere.

While I disagree with that vote, it's not that scummy by itself. However, she tries to flower it up by providing other

weak reasoning.

First, be specific; what reasoning of mine is so weak? Your glittering generality seems to be a way to avoid letting your readers actually make up their mind about whether that reasoning actually was weak.

She was trying to stretch her vote into more than it actually was.

a vote?

When I shoot down that other reasoning, she merely moves on to other points,

Misconstruction: other points emerged on further analysis. If you're town, you shouldn't have problems answering accusations.

basically dismissing her poor reasoning and creating a deflection.

You didn't ever specify how I was "deflecting" or what I was "deflecting" from; I'm on the offensive, where am I going to deflect? Also, yet again, note the use of language; "poor reasoning" without citing any examples. Goat ignores my points where I tell him his defense is inadequate.

She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer.

MISCONSTRUCTION. I know you were trying to elicit that response from me in some of your posts, but this is blatantly a lie. You are defending panzer by claiming logic says he's scum but your gut says he's town, and instead pushing against his lynch.

I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again.

Because that argument never existed. Moreover, how many arguments of mine have you dropped?

DEAR READER: Quite a challenge here, but I implore you to read between my posts and Goat's posts, and note how many of my accusations are still outstanding. I'm reading over my own posts, and it's entirely too much work to point out them all

That's deflection. Rather than debate a point she knew was wrong, she merely threw suspicion on me for other reasons and dismissed it.

Here's the pot calling the China black; you always try to answer my arguments by contorting them bizzarely and answering different arguments that I didn't make.

I feel she has led a similar crusade against Mykonian (making her case seem more than it actually is, rather than give the honest reasons she's voting him).

Links plz?

Then there is her continued avoidance of giving a stance on BB.

I thought you were just being ironic. My stance on BB was pretty obvious, IMO.

And BB has a point. She was defending him prior to even knowing what my case on him was about. After he admitted my case was valid, she threw out a "I need to reassess BB because he agreed with Goat's case" post, but has played as though he is town from that point onward.

Links plz?

If you look through her recent posting, you will see her discuss anything and everything but BB. I called her out on not taking a stance, and her post last night ignored my question (which I asked in both posts).

Again, I thought you were being ironic, and my stance on birthday was pretty clear from this post.

Frankly, I feel she has created a lot of confusion and has "muddied the waters" since joining the game. She has shown she's not stupid, yet she consistently misrepresents or doesn't grasp the simple concepts my posts are discussing.

Are you sure that's me, and not... you?

Case in point: Me saying we should lynch for scum not lynch for information, using the example of Panzer if he is town. "Zilla: Goat doesn't want information. Goat knows Panzer is town." Both are gross misrepresentations and I'm having a harder and harder time seeing her legitimately not understand those posts as opposed to deliberately misrepresenting them.

You fail to answer the accusation and instead try to deflect back on me. Hypocrisy++.

Then there is the hypocrisy inherent in "it's scummy when Goat is 'hypersensitive' or 'aggressively defensive'" yet Zilla responded in exactly the same fashion when I nailed her with her own logic.

Links plz?

I feel like I'm Christian Bale here, and Zilla is a Director of Photography checking the lights while I'm trying to do a scene. It's distracting.

Constantly forcing me to defend myself over misrepresentations of my stances is both annoying and distracting

, and it's certainly not helping us catch scum or decide on a lynch.

Bold: So you know how I feel then?

[Zilla]

^ Why are you always defending Goat?

My post is showing how goat is scummy for (among other things) lying, hypocrisy, dishonesty, misrepresentation, and failure to adequately address outstanding claims.

[Zilla]

Fucking hell, I am SO TIRED OF BEING MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.

I'm not voting BB because he's not my TOP suspect, which is Goat, for reasons I have stated, and will state again, and I've proven, and I would prove again, but people don't like to read my proofs because they are in quote wars, and somehow "pulled out of context" though they always are kept within context, there's nothing that changes meaning when addressed in order. That's a blatant fallacy.

Reasons Goat is top suspect:

His defense is to paraphrase, contort, misconstrue, misrepresent, and otherwise completely ignore my points, something scum have all the motivation and inclination to do.

He (and GIEFF now) are trying to control my vote, something scum do.

He refused accountability, which is the bane of scum's existence.

His mindset while attempting to appear pro-town on the "lynching for information" matches a scum-mindset.

He's been defensive of both panzer and mykonian, on separate occasions, who I also find scummy.

His oversimplification of players serves to distort their image, helpful entirely to scum.

All of his points against me are based on misinformation, a valid scum tactic.


Now, to address Goat's posts without quoting them because apparently that breaks their context, though it seriously doesn't.

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

On the SK discussion, you missed this post. It was stupid when I didn't have a handle on the game and the situation, and now it's not so much about what was being said but who said it. I'm suspicious of those people who advocate an SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one, and that includes myk and panzer.

Both you and GIEFF have misunderstood my intent on "being suspicious of nobody defending panzer." I mean you are suspicious THAT nobody is defending panzer, but then you fill that role by defending him. I've seen scum do this countless times. "Oh hay guize this wagun luks to EZ, lol! Thay must not B scum !" Turns out both the person being pushed and the person who said the wagon looked too easy were scum.

As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been. Perhaps if you take the integral of my suspicion over time, you might say I'm not voting for the person with the most area under their curve, but I've always voted for the top suspect on my list. Mykonian is still my second suspect. Panzer and Birthday are third but in different facets; Panzer is more "group suspicious" and Birthday is more "single suspicious."

On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.

On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

On "hasty dismissal," again, your "case" was three one-off lines. I'll admit I'd hardly read anything at that point, but whenever somebody switches their vote from somebody who hadn't defended themselves for somebody else who hadn't posted in a while and their listed reasons are "lack of scumhunting, suspicious disengage from Panzer, and wishy-washy stances," of course I'm going to be critical. That is a weak case, no matter what. There's no way that those reasons are enough to lynch anybody, and there seemed to be no outstanding catalyst for a changed vote other than the MacavityLock wagon was stuck in a rut.

Also, you say you wanted to "test reactions," which is a common scum justification for just about anything they do to try to get a wagon moving, especially if what they did was scummy to begin with. Note; this has been done multiple times in this game, by many people.

"Persuit of me as scum depsite being less likely to be scum if BB is scum." Yes, I'll agree with that, but now you're arguing the opposite of what you argued when it was Panzer and mykonian instead of you and BB. If I had to give it up between you two being scum, I'd pick you right now. This is the same reason I persued mykonian instead of Panzer. Between those two, I found Mykonian more likely to be scum. If mykonian started pushing you, or you started pushing mykonian, that wouldn't affect where I stand on either of you, though it would give more information once either of your alignments are known, making both of you more valuable lynch candidates.

On "inability to read posts," the same could be said of you, except that you're actively contorting mine to fit your wild arguments. You argue that I pull quotes out of context; what would be more clear "in context"? There's nothing missing from them that would be further explained by not addressing the points as they come up. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem because so much of those "out of context" things are because I try to point out exactly where your inaccuracy causes your entire case to fall apart. If you were talking about plants and how they are horrible because they eat kittens, and you make a detailed post about how plants eat kittens and what happens to the kitten populations, I'm going to stop you as soon as you say plants eat kittens. There's nothing about that statement that needs to be "in context" to be fully understood, and it is wrong.

Also, "that's the definition of strawman"? Unlike you, I answer every single part of those posts. I've only cut standalone statements that are not part of any argument. When you engage in your side of a quote war against me, you constantly incorrectly paraphrase me to destroy that actual intent of the argument.

On your example: "lynching for information." You commit that exact fallacy. I debated at length about the logic of lynching for information, and I debated why it is logical if panzer is town. You then CONSTRUCT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT by ignoring that, and instead attacking from the angle that panzer will be a mislynch while birthday will not. You ask why I'm arguing the validity of lynching for information? Either you or some other player it up as if that was what the people who were advocating panzer's lynch were doing, and I explained how that was an added benefit to the panzer case, that his lynch would provide additional information while birthday's would not, and that was completely independent from reasons to lynch them. Instead, you (yet again) misconstruct that argument as though I am saying lynching for information is better than lynching for scum, or that I had even been addressing that point to begin with.

On Zilla/BB theory, you've basically said "regardless of BB's alignment, I could be scum." Congrats. Regardless of Panzer's alignment, you could be scum for the same reasons.

On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

[Zilla]

If you accuse me of misrepresenting something where it is quite obvious I am not misrepresenting, I'll take that as an admission you don't have a legitimate defense.

If you accuse me of misrepresenting your misrepresentations when it's quite obvious you've misrepresented, I'll take that as an admission you don't have a legitimate case. </irony?

[Zilla]

Outstanding arguments Goat has not answered:

Another fine example of misrepresentation. Please point to where I agreed that my "entire reason for voting [you] was frustration." I never said it was based on frustration, and I denied it and explained every time that it was from the scummy nature of not wanting to be accountable. Thank you for demonstrating my point though.

Still claims this, still has not proven it.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with. With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you.

This is what I call misrepresentation. I listed very concisely why, and you call it "cutting through the horrible reasons." I call it "Spinning it to make me look scummy."

You declined to comment

Oh?
Really?
Did I?

except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.

Nevermind that you have been implicitly defending panzer all day while you say one thing and do another. You've called him scummy but NEVER HAVE YOU VOTED PANZER, especially when the stated reasons you weren't voting panzer to begin with have been removed.

=================

That's deflection. That's dodgy.

And just what accusations have I been deflecting from? You say I've ignored your defense, but what attack of yours have I ignored? What attacks have I "deflected" from? Another misrepresentation, to prove my point again, but I'm guessing that unless I include this intentionally hypocritical phrase,

you're just going to ignore it and deflect again

.
=================
First off, I'm not satisfied with your continued attempts to avoid being accountable, and that is STILL one of my main reasons for suspecting you, and it is not a weak case.

Second, I am not attacking only for defending yourself but the manner in which you are defending yourself, that is specifically scummy. Your attempt at generalization to reduce my arguement (and again misrepresent my case) should be noted.

=================

If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.

If A is the initial case of you avoiding accountability, I'm still arguing that with you, but you're saying I'm "brushing it aside" simply because you haven't actually answered the initial accusation, which has further been supported by, again, your lack of answer to the point-blank question of what your current view on panzer is. I suppose if you thought you had provided what I'd asked for by linking your older post, I'd be more understanding, but I give you more credit than that, and I would think you know exactly how that benefits you in the realm of being unaccountable. Perhaps I actually was wrong, but that lowers my opinion of your integrity quite a bit.

If B is the reaction to the defense, that is your entire method of scumhunting. You say you catch scum based on their method of attack, and in fact, you accuse me of being scum based on my method of attack. How is that different from me accusing you of being scum based on your method of defense?

=================
I find that just about every "defense" you've offered has been based on a misunderstanding or a misconstruction of events, and so I've had to amend inconsistencies. Instead of answering those inconsistencies, you do exactly as you accused me of and instead move on to another argument.

=================

She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others.

I dare you to find an example where I outright ignore something, rather than show your inconsistent behavior.

=================

She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.

So far, your defenses have matched what scum would do in the same situation. There's town defending themselves, and scum defending themselves. The myraid of misinformation in your posts highly contributes to your defense being scummy. You go so far in defending yourself that you skew facts, again like a guilty politician.

===============

You didn't ever specify how I was "deflecting" or what I was "deflecting" from; I'm on the offensive, where am I going to deflect? Also, yet again, note the use of language; "poor reasoning" without citing any examples. Goat ignores my points where I tell him his defense is inadequate.
===============

She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer.

MISCONSTRUCTION. I know you were trying to elicit that response from me in some of your posts, but this is blatantly a lie. You are defending panzer by claiming logic says he's scum but your gut says he's town, and instead pushing against his lynch.

I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again.

Because that argument never existed. [/quote]

[Zilla]

if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum.

compared with:

First, in strict terms of scumminess, BB is hovering around 75% for me

I shouldn't have to point out to actual town that these two posts are a long ways off from each other, and that this misrepresentation is transparently scummy.

[Zilla]

Holy crap, now GIEFF's getting in on misrepresenting. Do I really want to go into all this? I mean, christ...

Briefly then.

Goat Revolt, mykonian, Beyond_Birthday, Panzer, subgenius, militant, and myself have all said we don't like you asking for summaries before reading the thread.

Militant doesn't belong on that list, reading his post, and notice the others and how their reaction is far less "No, go read the thread" and more "Here's some places you should read first," and also how Birthday gave his views on people.

I don't think this is a coincidence, I think you are just stubborn and can't get past your initial frustration and move on to other players.

So you're saying you buy Goat's misconstucted version of this where I'm "voting on frustration" instead of where I'm voting him for not wanting to be held accountable.

It isn't about being accountable, it's about you being wrong. It's OK to be wrong, but it isn't OK to take your anger at being wrong and stretch it into pages and pages of anti-town quibbling to soothe your bruised ego, which is what your entire case on Goat looks like.

No. Based on empirical evidence, asking for summaries is not wrong, and I'd never had so much trouble getting them before. From experience, those who are reluctant to give their views on the matter are more likely scum not wanting to lay down associations that would implicate them later.

I wasn't actually frustrated to begin with, I was quite excited that scum would be so brazen.

-----------------

And here is your post 387, where you are forced to admit that Goat's case IS valid. I noticed you still assign no suspicion to B_B in this post, though:

Both of these are incorrect. I still don't admit Goat's case is "strong." BB basically self-implicated with his post, not because Goat's case was valid but because BB said goat "reached the right conclusions." Even if Goat had a faulty case, BB essentially claims that he was right to suspect him. His play afterward is mind-boggling, and I've been over how he's trying to lessen his scumminess by actually being the one to point it out and take ownership of it.

Second, this is right from that post:

Third: This whole post of yours suddenly makes me

far more suspicious of you than previously

, considering I must have read you entirely wrong because your stated reasons in that very post contradict what I thought of you to begin with. Clearly I was wrong in my opinion...

As Goat himself said:

Quote:
You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.

This is abundantly clear. If you weren't already suspicious of Goat, you would not have continued to pick at every post he makes to try to squeeze out every last drop of scummy you can possibly find. You aren't doing this with other players, just the one you initially voted for calling your summary-idea a bad one.

Again, either you're defending him as fellow scum or he's sold you on why I voted for him in the first place.

Things like the below quote are revealing of this mindset you have:

If I am to believe your stance is the same as it was in post 240, FOS: Goatrevolt. You're critical of nobody defending panzer, so

you're defending panzer

, all the while trying to admit that he looks scummy.

A LOT of people are not critical of people defending panzer. If this was your true criteria for scumminess, you would not have JUST focused on Goat.

"
I mean he's critical of "the fact that" nobody "is" defending panzer, so he uses that to defend panzer. Further explanation three posts back from this one.

I'm sure there are more examples of you calling Goat scummy for doing something that a lot of people are doing (calling you out for asking for summaries being another one). If you are being genuine in your reasoning for voting Goat, you would apply these reasons to other players as well, instead of focusing so much of your time on effort on one player who is extremely unlikely to be today's lynch.

First off, Goat and Myk's refusal is way more "shut-out, go away" style than any of the others. They don't even want to talk to me.

Second, you can check my meta, but I am almost always one of the first people on anyone's case. You shouldn't keep your vote off someone just because they aren't likely to be lynched. In fact, if anything, it only makes them a better target, since mafia are harder to lynch than town.




I said I'd be brief and I wasn't, so sue me.

[Zilla]

Throughout the thread, you've shown that you think you can find something in an argument, nitpick it, and then ignore the larger argument that is obviously the point of the post.

My argument, obviously, is that a LOT of people didn't like your request for summaries. A lot of them. The degree to which some did is irrelevant.

Funny how this is totally hypocrisy; you nitpick my argument, that it actually DOES matter how much they disagreed, and ignore it entirely. Just like Goat, you're generalizing to avoid the specifics of the case. Your point was that I haven't been pushing on everybody who has declined to give a summary, I told you why, and instead, you say I "was nitpicking" and "didn't answer the actual argument," meanwhile you ignore my point that answers that actual accusation you levied against me. You twisted your own argument into something different that doesn't even accuse me of anything to begin with, this kind of logic-judo shouldn't be used.

You are not interested in understanding what I'm saying, you're interested in finding a small part of my overall argument you can attack, saying "misrepresentation" and then moving on as if my entire argument is invalidated and you don't need to respond to it. This is deflection, and it is scummy; I KNOW you understood my point.

Interesting, but look how you just did the same thing. In this case the "small part of my overall agrument you can attack" is that I called it a misrep, and then you move on as if my entire argument (which actually addressed the issue of why I didn't hound others as much as Myk and Goat) was invalidated.

Many people did not like your request for a summary. I haven't seen a SINGLE PERSON say it was a good idea, or that they think not giving you a summary means they are not accountable.

If anybody does feel this way, please speak up now.

Not to answer for people, but url=http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 26#1482867]ting=) says he does it.[/url] He does also say he doesn't see the reaction of not wanting to give one as scummy though, but just because nobody in this town seems to get the logic behind it doesn't make it invalid. This isn't the only mafia game ever played. I know it works from other games.

So you're saying you buy Goat's misconstucted version of this where I'm "voting on frustration" instead of where I'm voting him for not wanting to be held accountable.

That's sure what it looks like to me. You're claiming that you're voting Goat for not wanting to be held accountable?

Post 234:

It would be unfair of me to accuse you of being non aggressive but I would say you are arguing over pretty much nothing at all. All you have to do is read the thread. That is it. You have created more useless non game related discussion since replacing because you don't want to read the thread. That is slightly hypocritical.

What.
the.
Fuck.

I'm not the one who started this argument over posting summaries. If people had posted summaries to begin with, there would be more game relevant content and not this stupid meta-debate, but instead, people have spent more energy rebuffing my request than it would have taken to fulfill it, and I hate how people don't want to be held accountable!

At the time you wrote this, 5 people had told you that your idea of getting summaries before reading the thread yourself was a poor one. Five people who "don't want to be held accountable" in your mind.

If being unaccountable is truly your reason for voting Goat, you would have focused also on other players who were "unaccountable." Your unnatural focus on Goat reveals that "unaccountability" is not your true reason; if it were, you would apply it consistently to others whom you found "unaccountable."

Okay, seriously, stop being a hypocrite. I already answered this, but now you're acting like I didn't, because you "invalidated" my answer to this by saying I was just "nitpicking."

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense. The strangest thing of all is that this is counter to the earlier dynamic between Goat, Panzer, and GIEFF. GIEFF pushes panzer, Goat defends panzer, and now GIEFF defends goat who had been defending panzer. GIEFF is also defending Goat MUCH MORE than Goat's soft-spoken defense of panzer.


But I did realize something; Goat really isn't going anywhere, and we'll at least have more information on him post-day 1. Birthday continues to look scummy as the game progresses. Panzer's off lurking, which is pretty terrible in these conditions, and I'd definately like to hear more from him before the day ends.

Unvote: Goatrevolte

---

IGMEOY

Vote: Beyond Birthday

I highly suggest we don't go to lynch until Panzer returns though.


--------------------

Mykonian: You say you've "lost your read" on panzer. Why is this? What changed since earlier? Do you now think he's actually scum?

I also don't think you've gone on record for your views on goat and Birthday, and I think you would have a good opinion on ting=) for his participation in your argument with GIEFF.

[Zilla]

I haven't read much of anything but the vote count today, but I do have to laugh that I'm suddenly being voted for because I finally give in and vote for Birthday. God damn, what the hell do you want me to do? You crucify me for attacking goat, and now you vote me for switching to Birthday!

Now, time to read the posts to get current...-

[Zilla]

Okay, it's fine now, I'm pretty sure the scum team is already on me, so I can relax some. Fastwagon is telling.

The lack of panzer input is getting disconcerting, but I have to say, in his absence, I think at least two members of the scum team have asserted themselves. This all depends on who is town that's being pushed though.

First off, there's the mistake that I put Birthday at L-1. Counting the votes, it was L-2. I don't know why GIEFF said he had put birhtday at L-2 before.

Second, there's the whole nature of their disengage plus goat telling Birthday not to claim. I thought Birthday was a top suspect for goat? Why would he switch so superfluously and tell Birthday not to claim?

The whole way this scene is playing out, and especially GIEFF switching votes at Birthday gets another, seems way too opportunistic to me. I suspect at least 2, if not all 3, out of Birthday, Goat, and GIEFF to be scum.

It makes the most sense if they are all scum, but I've never seen scum move entirely in a block like that. There's probably someone else not taking part to hedge their bets.

I'm entirely disheartened by those who claim Goat looks pro-town and that I'm nitpicking when I clearly explain all his misconceptions/misrepresentations, he continues to make them, and suddenly I'M the one who's ignoring his posts, because I'm not addressing his warped reality versions of my responses. I could get into yet another quote war, but then I'd be "nitpicking" and honestly I'd have to correct him on the same mistakes he's made so many times before.

It's possible that he's just a stubborn, hypocritical townie that can't see he's doing everything he's accusing me of. Aside from him laying into me in perhaps the scummiest way possible (constructing a false reality), his scumminess is basically that he hates being accountable and he has tenuous connections to Panzer and Mykonian. Those connections have eroded, though, in the face of the much stronger connections to GIEFF and Birthday.

GIEFF has a lot of the same style problems as goat, either he buys Goat's faulty universe (either as town or as scum, both are possible, one is intentional) or he also shares Goat's stubbornness. My original assertion that he was town was entirely based on not wanting to clearly distinguish between him and Dour, and finding Dour pro-town to begin with. He got "town by association" from that.

Birthday is the one I consider least likely to be town, both directly and indirectly, out of the three. Directly, his defense has been completely non-existant and he's done more than anyone else in incriminating himself.

I should also take this moment to RE-clarify a huge issue; I still don't think Goat's case is valid. I honestly saw Birthday as I saw him in my defense post when I made it. That was my read on him until Birthday came in and utterly destroyed it. Somehow, Goat/GIEFF have been trying to spin it that I "knew he was town" (note how they suddenly seem to assert he is town now that they have someone else to vote). Patently, and clearly, not true. Aside from Birthday basically saying what he did was patently scummy, and that Goat reaches the right conclusions, I thought his actions were sincere and mild.

Further is the continued spin that I haven't provided a solid stance on Birthday since then, but I'm pretty sure town knows that this is a spin :/.

I keep getting distracted and I have things I need to do right now so I'll have to finish later.

[Zilla]

I don't like your call for me to be a martyr at all. I had been considering it but it's still too early to do anything of that sort. I'm only leading by one vote while Birthday is only one behind me. I still think Birthday is a better lynch than myself, since he's got a higher chance of being scum and provides the same level of information. Again, you want us to ignore Birthday.

If you become a valid choice though, I'd consider picking you over Birthday. He's been on cruise control for scum the whole time but you've been speeding toward it like a rocket since your disengagement from Birthday. Yeah, you can try to whitewash it by saying I'm only attacking my attacker, but that doesn't cover up the incredibly scummy opportunistic disengage from Birthday when the heat got turned up.

[Zilla]

It means you don't commit to telling us how you feel about players or cases, other than a select few (i.e. me vs. Panzer). It's easier to avoid being caught in contradictions or inconsistencies that way.

You gave a great example in that very post. You leave the door open for both sides, refusing to commit. "But on the other hand..."

Where was this when I was saying the same thing about goat on panzer?

[Zilla]

Yeah, keep pushing that "solidarity" angle, and continue the hypocritical deflection, and continue warping reality, and continue to double-speak about Birthday, and continue to misrepresent my reasons for voting Birthday.

I'm "deflecting" because I give town much more credit than having to correct every mistake you build into your posts (examples from last post, "GIEFF is my top townie" when I said I consider he and Dour to be town a long time ago, heaven forbid my opinion changes; Again bringing up the miscommunication on my part when I said the SK discussion was stupid when I didn't fully understand what was going on and who was who\.) Nevermind that I have a valid point that anyone stressing lynching the SK over the mafia when we don't even know there is an SK is likely trying to distract the town from hunting the mafia; somehow implying that because Birthday was a valid choice that I should not have voted him, despite CONSTANT appeals from him to do so:

"Vote him!"
"No, I'm voting you!"
"<arguments> Vote him or you're scum."
"<counter-arguments> No, I'm voting you, I think you're scum."

-repeat-

"Vote him or you're scum!"
"You know, it will at least give information on you, and I do suspect him, so fine, vote birthday."
"OMG SCUM."


I don't like how they've changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town. OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

@ Myk: It's not "too easy" so much as "too fast" and extremely suspiciously timed. You've also been extremely fishy in all this for not committing one way or another, that's the whole "dancing at the edge of the spotlight" thing I was talking about. Crazy conspiracy perhaps, but it's possible you're the missing link...

That... that makes some sense.

You won't commit to a stance either way because scum naturally won't put all their eggs in one basket; when I flip town, if the entire scumwagon was on me, that'd make it all too easy. Instead, you're sticking to the sidelines and playing it safe, but keeping your options open for later.

If there's one thing Goat's right on, it's that SL needs to stop lurking. In all the time I've been in this game, her only posts have been "catching up." On one hand, she's probably being thorough, which I can't fault, but on the other, she hasn't even commented on what she's read so far. Ting did a good job in that regard, and it probably encouraged him to participate more. I suggest Spring do as ting did and comment on the game wherever it is that she's at.

[Zilla]

Quickie: Sorry Panzer, I forgot your V/LA, and it seemed like you had skipped out when nobody was talking about you anymore :/.

[Zilla]

Shortish-between-class post: On GIEFF's qwints case: again a lot of interpretation, and surprising that you're switching off of me for it. Some points are quite valid.

Actually, I just now remembered he was the replacement for MacavityLock. I'll have to reread both of them when I have more time.

I actually think putting pressure on him may be a good idea, though he strikes me more as an uninvested player more than anything, a perfect scapegoat for ambitious scum. The problem is that he hasn't contributed much to judge it on. People make mistakes, but it's all about the intent and cause of those mistakes, and, again, I haven't heard enough from him to see whether his intent is pro- or anti-town.

[Zilla]

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS:

please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess,

please

say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

Join the club, Dour. I haven't had much time for anything due to large amounts of schoolwork, but Dour, this is exactly what's going on with my case. I explain every time where they are wrong, but they ignore it. :/

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

I'll check back tomorrow; if I'm still at L-2, I'll claim. I don't like that Birthday was in a similar situation and got off without a claim though, even when GIEFF (falsely) asserted that he was at L-2 when he was at L-3.

Again, I don't like how GIEFF and Goat jumped off of birthday because I jumped on. I'm seeing a false facade here.

On qwints:

He promised a read on Mykonian and failed to deliver, he promised a rereading of [your] misrepresentations and failed to deliver, and he generally doesn't have much input in the thread.

He replaced MacavityLock who argued to try hunting the SK instead of the mafia, and I find that highly suspect, for reasons we've been over many times before. In fact, he seems to be aware of the problem this causes, reading his third post, and tries to backpedal from that stance, though his second post pretty much hinges on Panzer arguing to lynch mafia over SK. Still, a possible misunderstanding.

Neither of them contributed much.

Points I feel are invalid:

It is also odd that you say mykonian and Panzer are the scummiest, yet you hop on the B_B wagon without presenting any original reasons, probably because it looks like an easy lynch.

Many developments and sparse activity make for the kind of play he's using, town or scum, and if he's town, it's an easy frame job for scum to pull off. When you read the post in the context of the situation, it's far less scummy, aside from his forgetting about Mykonian/Panzer.

In fact, almost all of your case on him is based on his inactivity and playstyle, which would be fixed with more contribution. Apply pressure might get him to post more, so we can actually have a valid opinon of him. Including MacavityLock, that position has contributed a total of 14 real posts (one of Macavity's is V/LA announcement, one is confirm, one of qwints' is an EBWOP, one is introduction, one is a "sorry, will read later.")

Speaking of "sorry, will read later." The last time we actually heard anything of importance from SpringLulliby was here. post 215, page

NINE

.

[Zilla]

Dour, I noticed you had some false notions about me from some of your posts, and funnily enough, they're not even the same as Goat/GIEFF's notions.

Birthday wasn't ever my "top suspect," and I switched to him because he was another leading candidate, had a good chance to be scum, and him being scum would have partially absolved Goat of being scum from driving him so hard. Since Goat just wasn't looking like a lynch candidate (probably because we kept getting into quote wars, our arguments turned into my word against his, and it seemed like most of town were ignoring the quote wars where my case was detailed), I switched to Birthday in a two-fold benefit attempt at both lynching scum and getting further information about Goat.

[Zilla]

(realized "leading candidate" could be interpreted wrong, it's meant as "leading suspect")

[Zilla]

GIEFF: why do you think Qwints is a lynch candidate while Dour is not? Aside from your vote, neither have any votes on them.

[Zilla]

Goat, you want me to "nitpick" and "deflect" by answering your questions? Eh? I mean, pick a side here; either I point out how your arguments are invalid (apparently nitpicking or deflecting, depending on what day of the week it is) or I try to answer them without directly pointing out why your "information" is wrong (these are always, ALWAYS ignored). Either read my posts, or stop saying my responses are "deflection" and "nitpicking" when I point out why they are invalid.

So, what point about "how my vote should have been on Birthday earlier" are you talking about? Also, where's this explanation of ditching Birthday? I see this erroneous quote that shows you missed the intent of the post..

I don't like how they've

changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him

. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying

I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

Bolded sections are contradictory. The first bolded section says that we changed our mind about Birthday

because

you voted him. The second bolded section says that we voted you

because

we changed our mind about Birthday. You're arguing two separate and contradictory reasons to try to call us scum.

Duh, they're contradictory. That was the point, I'm pointing out how your moves and reasons are contradictory. I vote Birthday because he's more likely to be lynched AND he is a valid suspect AND he gives information about you, and suddenly, Birthday's not the lynch anymore, and suddenly, all the suspicion you built up on Birthday is apparently vaporized because I voted for him, and somehow my vote on him is scummy because I'm trying to "appease" you.

unvote: Birthday
vote: Goatrevolt

I'm thinking by association here that Birthday is innocent, and Goat was initially trying to get him lynched, but he was afraid he'd be too accountable for the results. I don't know where GIEFF factors into this, considering he was very VERY softly involved in the Birthday push, but I'm reasonably certain that Goat's the most likely scum player given his constant skewing of facts.

On Qwints: I don't have a solid stance on him. He's only posted 10 times himself, and you want me to declare him either scum or town? Are you digging for information to use my alignment to chain-lynch another townie or what?





I would like a clear summary of your case on me, and yes, I'm going to "nitpick" it to point out the flaws. I don't think it's going to "convince" you otherwise, but I want to see how much of your case is still based on your skewed info. At the very least, it'll serve as a base to stop this "You didn't answer some vague argument that I'm not going to quote or link" business and ought to clear up a ton of misconceptions. In the off chance that you are town, it might help you at least realize how nebulous and unfounded some of these arguments are.

[Zilla]

Oh, and sorry to distract from matters, but

FOS: Mykonian

for the "lynching a townie" thing. His whole stance so far seems to be scum trying to gain the benefit from a town flip. It's blatantly obvious, to the point that I'd say he's my second suspect again.

[Zilla]

I'm waiting on Goat's summary, possibly BB's summary.

The contradiction aspect of Zilla is that she was not voting for who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was not even attacking who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was attacking me, and I was the one attacking Birthday, who was most likely to be scum at the time. The time period I speak of is Post 387. In that post, she lists me as 20% likely to be scum. You are at 50%, Panzer is at 40%. Birthday is at 75%. Later on in the thread, Zilla says that Birthday is at 75%, and she also says that her opinion on Birthday had not changed at all during the period between Post 387 and that post. What that means is Birthday was at 75%, you at 50%, Panzer 40%, me 20%. Her vote was on you, and then it swapped to me. She did not vote or attack Birthday, who was her top suspect. That is contradictory and scummy.

I hate to point this out, but my suspicion on you grew significantly after that post, and even during it. This is the post in question. Note the "wait a minute" addendum.

... Though, looking back, why WASN'T I voting Birthday then? I really ought to have, but hindisght is 20/20 and all, and my suspicions at the time were rather focused on Goat for his relationship with Myk and Panzer.. That's all pretty much in the past at this point, and we're dealing with a different issue now (though come to think of it, that issue was never really resolved as it was, and now Panzer's pretty eager to follow Goat's lead).

That, and I was still not sure how to deal with Birthday destroying my faith in him, I guess.

[Zilla]

I'm not a big fan of the "Oh, I played incorrectly, now let's move on" style of defense. BB did it and now Zilla has participated in it. Zilla seems to be saying she was tunneling on Goat instead of trying to find scum.

FOS: Zilla

I should be more explicit; this is where Goat didn't give a clear answer to my question over what he thought of Panzer for 4 pages, and my current vote was on Mykonian, not Goat. I had this to say about it:

I personally don't see a link between Myk and BB, and I still feel Myk is scum, so I'm not ready to move yet, but if I can find a link between Myk and BB, or if Myk somehow absolves himself, or if it comes down to deadline and Myk isn't a valid lynch choice, I'll be moving my vote.

-----

Heh, while diving for this post, I came across this one which I assume a lot of people just skimmed over, though this one still contains answers to Goat's case (that he still hasn't posted), and even raises some accusations that still haven't been adequately answered. Have a read.

[Zilla]

You call that an answer?

This could be the funniest thing I have read in the thread. This is even funnier than Zilla simulposting her defense of BB with his acknowledgment of being scummy, and then having to fall back on an "oh shit" post. You know that "oh shit I overextended defending BB so I'll go ahead and toss suspicion on Goat for the reasons I unvoted him!" post.

Lol wut? Talk about misconstruction, and I've already explained my reaction to BB's post. Saying that it could be something else, and treating it as fact, doesn't change reality.

My style is "shut-out, go away"? As evidenced by the post wars I've engaged with you? Hilarious.

Almost as hilarious as completely ignoring the actual accusation, wherein I am talking about your refusal to be held accuontable (also repeated, never addressed), and not your overall playstyle.

Okay, seriously, stop being a hypocrite. I already answered this, but now you're acting like I didn't, because you "invalidated" my answer to this by saying I was just "nitpicking."

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense. The strangest thing of all is that this is counter to the earlier dynamic between Goat, Panzer, and GIEFF. GIEFF pushes panzer, Goat defends panzer, and now GIEFF defends goat who had been defending panzer. GIEFF is also defending Goat MUCH MORE than Goat's soft-spoken defense of panzer.


Speaking of deflection. You ignore GIEFF's valid point. You instead employ deflection. You deflect to attacking him as a scum buddy of me, rather than address the point he is making. You got caught, so you shift attention.

Did you miss this part?

I already answered this, but now you're acting like I didn't, because you "invalidated" my answer to this by saying I was just "nitpicking."

Re-reading the rest of the post, again, you're trying to spin my vote on Birthday really hard. The fact of the matter is that, while he's got a less chance of being scum, I realized nobody was even paying attention to you, and there's a significant chance Birthday is scum instead, so because nobody bothered examining you today, I resigned to voting for Birthday instead, if anything, because it had a chance of clearing you. That is until you unvoted Birthday afterward, now I'm much less convinced you're of opposite alignments, since your sincerity is in question. Your addendum at the end telling him not to claim only bolsters that notion.

I'm still fine either with Birthday or Goat, and I'm also fine with Panzer/Myk at this point. Honestly, this game has so many people asking for the noose that it's tough to figure out who the real scum are.

[Zilla]

Also, on the first quote, the "lol wut?" is about the "voting [Goat] for the same reasons I unvoted him." I unvoted him because he demonstrated that he has information on people's alignments? I don't think so.

Actually, I can't even recall why I unvoted him other than that he was finally willing to hold accountability, at least for a little while.

[Zilla]

You call that an answer?

Zilla, do you even read my posts? No, of course it wasn't an answer. That's why I said I was willing to answer it if necessary.

Look at the very first line of post 554. Then think for a second.

Here, you do as you accuse me of: deflection. Look at this line in that post:

I do have to answer this one part of post 539:

You call that an answer?

The rest of my post is valid.

I'm waiting on Goat's summary before I claim; I'd like to not have to and I'm feeling more and more confident that goat doesn't have a case, and I'm quite interested in Panzer's (in)actions at the moment.

In the absence of goat actually putting up a case, I may have to just compile all his accusations and my refutations, just for reference. Megapost incoming.

[Zilla]

While I disagree with that vote, it's not that scummy by itself. However, she tries to flower it up by providing other

weak reasoning.

First, be specific; what reasoning of mine is so weak? Your glittering generality seems to be a way to avoid letting your readers actually make up their mind about whether that reasoning actually was weak.

She was trying to stretch her vote into more than it actually was.

a vote?

When I shoot down that other reasoning, she merely moves on to other points,

Misconstruction: other points emerged on further analysis. If you're town, you shouldn't have problems answering accusations.

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

There's also his skewings, which I'll provide examples of throughout this post.

basically dismissing her poor reasoning and creating a deflection.

You didn't ever specify how I was "deflecting" or what I was "deflecting" from; I'm on the offensive, where am I going to deflect? Also, yet again, note the use of language; "poor reasoning" without citing any examples. Goat ignores my points where I tell him his defense is inadequate.

This is never brought up again.

She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer.

MISCONSTRUCTION. I know you were trying to elicit that response from me in some of your posts, but this is blatantly a lie. You are defending panzer by claiming logic says he's scum but your gut says he's town, and instead pushing against his lynch.

I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again.

Because that argument never existed. Moreover, how many arguments of mine have you dropped?

...

That's deflection. Rather than debate a point she knew was wrong, she merely threw suspicion on me for other reasons and dismissed it.

Here's the pot calling the China black; you always try to answer my arguments by contorting them bizzarely and answering different arguments that I didn't make.

I should further note that he's basically saying I'm not answering his argument just because I show him that his argument is wrong. What?

I feel she has led a similar crusade against Mykonian (making her case seem more than it actually is, rather than give the honest reasons she's voting him).

Links plz?

Further evidence not provided; point dropped.

Then there is her continued avoidance of giving a stance on BB.

I thought you were just being ironic. My stance on BB was pretty obvious, IMO.

Anyone else think I wasn't clear on my stance on BB?

And BB has a point. She was defending him prior to even knowing what my case on him was about. After he admitted my case was valid, she threw out a "I need to reassess BB because he agreed with Goat's case" post, but has played as though he is town from that point onward.

Links plz?

GIEFF provides links here:

Here is your post 385, where you say Goat's case on BB is bad, and defend BB's behavior. In it, you even say:

Yeah, call it chainsaw if you like, but I'm explaining why I don't buy your case.

I explain why it isn't chainsaw defense, it's my reasons for not buying Goat's weak case.

And here is your post 387, where you are forced to admit that Goat's case IS valid.

Answered here:

Both of these are incorrect. I still don't admit Goat's case is "strong." BB basically self-implicated with his post, not because Goat's case was valid but because BB said goat "reached the right conclusions." Even if Goat had a faulty case, BB essentially claims that he was right to suspect him. His play afterward is mind-boggling, and I've been over how he's trying to lessen his scumminess by actually being the one to point it out and take ownership of it.

If you look through her recent posting, you will see her discuss anything and everything but BB. I called her out on not taking a stance, and her post last night ignored my question (which I asked in both posts).

Again, I thought you were being ironic, and my stance on birthday was pretty clear from this post.

Frankly, I feel she has created a lot of confusion and has "muddied the waters" since joining the game. She has shown she's not stupid, yet she consistently misrepresents or doesn't grasp the simple concepts my posts are discussing.

Case in point: Me saying we should lynch for scum not lynch for information, using the example of Panzer if he is town. "Zilla: Goat doesn't want information. Goat knows Panzer is town." Both are gross misrepresentations and I'm having a harder and harder time seeing her legitimately not understand those posts as opposed to deliberately misrepresenting them.

You fail to answer the accusation and instead try to deflect back on me. Hypocrisy++.

I'm sure I addressed this again somewhere else, but the accusation he ignored was that he was basically saying we can't lynch panzer because if he's town, we gain no information. This is wrong on more than one level. First off, we definitely gain information, and secondly, he's using a contradictory standpoint between "Don't lynch for information" and "We can't lynch panzer because he provides no information." He implies that he either knows that Panzer is a bad choice of lynch using information that is not available to town.

Then there is the hypocrisy inherent in "it's scummy when Goat is 'hypersensitive' or 'aggressively defensive'" yet Zilla responded in exactly the same fashion when I nailed her with her own logic.

Links plz?

Links not provided.

I feel like I'm Christian Bale here, and Zilla is a Director of Photography checking the lights while I'm trying to do a scene. It's distracting.

Constantly forcing me to defend myself over misrepresentations of my stances is both annoying and distracting

, and it's certainly not helping us catch scum or decide on a lynch.

Bold: So you know how I feel then?

Should be noted that he hasn't shown at all where my accusations aren't true; many times he ignores them and instead attacks me, something he also accuses me of.

================

Goat and GIEFF have both pointed to this:

@ GIEFF: I'm not as suspicious of Panzer as I am of Myk, if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum.

And ridden me for not mentioning Birthday. This was in response to GIEFF's post:

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

So you are suggesting a goat-mykonian-panzer scum pair?

That's why Birthday isn't there, and I'm answering for how I stood before Birthday's simulpost of scumminess. I address later why my vote is still on Mykonian, and I say I'll support a Birthday lynch if Mykonian fails to gain any ground, until Goat usurped both Mykonian and Birthday.

====================

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

[Zilla]

First, to GIEFF, part of the reason it looks like it does is because I was rereading the thread as I was continuing to post. You guys had already established characters with each other, but I didn't have that luxury, and I was only really getting anything valid from Goat, and it was provoking interest.

I think the link between extending a case being scummy is somewhat weak as well, especially when I'm replacing in and still catching up. I replaced and hit the ground running in this game and actually managed to launch into the two mafiattes almost immediately. Even if Goat wasn't scum, the accusations ought to have generated some more information from players' reactions. It just happened that Goat's reaction was the scummiest.

Above, Goat tries to strengthen his case on this point as well, though I have to say the opposite is true. Town would extend their case with new information, scum wouldn't. It's far more likely that if scum hit a wall, they'll find someone else to push, rather than continue to attack the same person. If town are tuned in on somebody, and they continually drop scummy tells, of course they're going to add them to the case. It's also ironic how his entire case is a mirror of this tactic; he's "extended" his case in the same way I've extended mine.

She voted me because I was pissing her off by not providing a summary of the game.

I see you haven't learned.

From Post 292

Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted.

Half-right. It's initial cause is because you "didn't give me what I wanted," but it's not emotional, it's because you're uncooperative response seems incredibly scummy (read again, paranoia about creating inconsistencies, stemming possible inputs of information.

What she did, was stretch her case into "more" by also attacking my vote on MacavityLock (based on reasons she had not bothered to look into), by attacking my style of defending myself (a style she also utilizes), and by attacking my playstyle as scummy. Those three reasons add up to essentially nothing, and were not the reason Zilla voted me at all. So why does she add them to the case?

You put "more" in quotes? I'm attacking your lack of conviction on MacavityLock, not the vote itself, and you never did adequately explain it. It was a holdover from a long time ago in the SK debate. You then throw it away for an even weaker poke at Birthday that follows the general current at the time. This was never answered, just dismissed as "weak."

Then the style of defending yourself; you do exactly what scum do. You pretend accusations go away because you call them weak without answering them or showing why, you distort and misconstrue and spin things, and you act as though even looking into you is worthy of suspicion. In fact, the whole case on me for extending my arguments is an example of trying to equate suspecting Goat with being scummy.

As for it "somehow morphing into accountability," that was the entire issue to begin with, and STILL hasn't been answered.

As for accusing your playstyle of being scummy, that's something you brought up on your own. Here's what I had to say about it.

[quote="Zilla]Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town. You're pushing people on stupid non logic, you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you, and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static, and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you. [/quote]

[quote="Zilla]

3. You don't like my playstyle

Where did this come from, unless by "my playstyle" you mean "my penchant to dodge questions like a well-versed politician, my method of 'scumhunting' being based on 'how people attack me,' my ability to misconstrue and warp those attacks, and my middle-management-esque ability to shirk accountability." If that's what you meant, then, yes, I don't like your playstyle, because it's scummy, and if you are town, you're jamming my radar. [/quote]

b) Her vote on Mykonian. Her vote on him is mostly because he asked her to. Meh, ok. Why add in the point about him being the first to mention a SK, then? She had just finished going on and on about how we spent too much time stuck in the random phase and too much time discussing all the SK nonsense, then she turns around and includes it as a reason for voting Mykonian? Really? Willing to change your mind that quickly when you need another point against someone?

You missed many
points
here (yes, each word is a separate link).

2. Hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy by itself is a huge point, because townies can occasionally have a bit of hypocrisy. However, I do think hypocrisy points more to scum than town. Attacking someone over something you are equally as guilty of reflects insincerity. If you play a certain way, then there's no reason for you to consider that a scumtell in others.

The IRONY. Oh, the irony. Lord, you're killing me.

a) Post 297. In this post, we see Zilla vote for Mykonian essentially from 4 "off the cuff" 1 liners. Sound familiar? She has just finished attacking me for voting Birthday without going into detail on my reasons. And she does the exact same thing.

Huh,

missed this post

, eh? On the request of one person, I clarify and solidify my case as necessary. Instead, there is a long distance between

your initial accusations





and






your clarification.

b) Attacking me as scum for aggressively defending myself, or responding in a hypersensitive manner to accusations against me. Zilla is guilty of exactly the same playstyle.

Very maybe perhaps, though I answer my accusations, you distort them and and answer different, unrelated accusations, or outright ignore them, or outright ignore my answers to your accusations. I don't have to rely on deception to come clean, and I have admitted when I was wrong.

c) She asked me my current opinion on Panzer, despite me having given it to her recently, and I linked her to the post that outlined it. She harassed me 4 different times over providing a link rather than retyping it out (this matters, why??). Compare that with me asking her for her stance on Birthday. She first ignored it because she didn't think I was serious because it was in the thread, and then she responded by giving me a link to the post where she mentioned it. If Zilla had such a giant issue (she went crazy over this meaningless point) with me linking to my stance rather than simply retyping it out, and if she actually believed it to be a meaningful tell in any sense, then there is no way in hell she links to her stance rather than retypes it out.

Ummm... what? I did BOTH, I linked it, AND I typed it out (and also here)

And I've already answered that here:

On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

3. Strawmanning. Strawmanning is essentially pulling one aspect of a case or a point out, arguing against that specific aspect, and then expanding that to say that the entire case is flawed.

Because it's the truth. I've pulled out the rug from the rest of your case. Here's a case in point. I'm refuting the very root of your argument, and there's no real need to address the rest of the argument because it's not even applicable. This isn't strawmanning at all. Strawmanning is what you do when you construct a somewhat similar but unrelated case and attack THAT instead of the actual case at hand, and imply that victory on your special case implies victory to the case at large.

The funny thing is that you say I don't answer your arguments, when those arguments are strawmen to begin with, that's what I point out, and then you continue to assert they are valid arguments.

Oftentimes scum will do that to avoid answering points they cannot answer, or to generate suspicion. For example, let's say I lay down a Martin Luther style 95 reasons to think someone is scum. You pick out reason 84, argue against it, and then go on to say my case is flawed. Maybe that specific reason is flawed, but it doesn't nullify the case in entirety.

Oh

MY

GOD!

Did you just use a strawman argument to prove your point? Yes. Yes you did.

I actually had to stifle laughter!

This is a strawman argument. This is a very solid example of a strawman argument. He creates the strawman (I am attacking one of his 95 reasons for thinking someone is scum) and says that because I disprove one of them, he still has 94 reasons someone is scum. This strawman argument is not related to our specific case. It works for his example, and he hopes to extend that logic to our specific case, where it does not work, instead of actually addressing a real point where I attack his case and it all falls apart because I've proven that it was a strawman argument to begin with.

Maybe I say something like "if Panzer is town, what would we gain from his lynch" as a challenge to people suggesting lynching for information is acceptable and you go on to extract "Panzer is town" and attribute it to my belief. At any rate, here are the examples I've given before:

a) Post 385. I mention that I don't understand which of two possible mindsets Birthday had. You cut it off and take my "I don't understand" out of context to imply that I don't understand the Birthday situation at large.

Yes, I'll admit my quote paraphrase takes it out of context in a bit of dirty fightin' to show you the irony in saying that you didn't understand where to fall on his case, and somehow trying to use that as fuel for suspicion. It was meant as an ironic jab, not a true slanderization, since I give town enough credit to understand where it came from. From my point of view, you didn't understand your own case on Birthday, and it was built on a misunderstanding.

That's a strawman.

No, that's not a strawman at all. In fact, there's no actual logical weight in my argument. That little bit does not serve as any basis for further logic, it's a standalone one-shot. Furthermore, even if your definition of strawman was valid, I don't use that to refuse answering any other part of your case.

You then proceed to dismiss my reasoning, saying that Birthday's large post would clear it up, which suggests that YOU were the one who didn't understand, considering the section you had just quoted above is in direct contradiction to that.

Apparently, yes, I was the one who didn't understand, good show. Now you're not even attacking it as a strawman argument anymore, it's suddenly some other, non-connected case, that you're trying to turn into a strawman argument against me.

Also, that's not what I remember saying.

Your case here is based on a faulty premise and faulty conclusions, but really, just reading over

Birthday's HUGE vote post

should clear this all up.

This was in reference to his vote on Panzer, where he uses GIEFF's logic, which apparently I had misread, according to BB's simulpost.

b) Post 480 - Post 482. In the first post I attack the idea that lynching Panzer is acceptable even if he is town. In that second post Zilla attacks me on the basis that I'm defending against a Panzer lynch because he could be town. Strawman. She rips out my example scenario and attacks it as my belief.

You're missing the point; your entire example hinges on knowing that Panzer is town to begin with. In order for your example to even hold any weight, we have to know that Panzer is town already. That's faulty logic, as we most reasonably suspect him of being scum if we are going to lynch him. That's also why it indicates you are operating from a scum mindset. Since WE don't know panzer's alignment, we can't even use the example you outline, and the only reason to propose such an example is if you know Panzer's alignment ahead of time.

Reread this post for an example.

I will admit that this is one of the weaker aspects of my case, not because I'm wrong about her strawmanning me, but because it's plausible that Zilla does this as town. However, at a certain point, the way she goes about doing it becomes scummy. I won't go into detail on that yet, I want to see how she responds to the above first.

It's weak because you don't understand what strawmanning really is, and you attempt to use it as a blanket term to describe my actions as scummy. However, when you go into specifics rather than sweeping generalizations, you can see where my points are entirely valid, and don't even qualify for your misused version of "strawman arguments."

4. Backtracking.

a) Post 396. This post can basically be summed up as, "I didn't bother looking into the validity of Goat's arguments enough to realize that he was actually correct about Birthday." I find this scummy, because she went out of her way to defend Birthday, and clearly did so without a full grasp of the situation. Why as town, would you stretch yourself to defend a player without truly understanding the extent of the case against him? I argue that she was doing this entirely to discredit my case for the purpose of throwing suspicion on me.

What are you even talking about? Not only is this pure conjecture, it's based on manufactured evidence. I still don't agree with your reasoning on Birthday. If Birthday hadn't made his own post that basically said despite your faulty logic, you had the right idea, I'd still believe Birthday to be town. Removing his own post, my post is an entirely valid defense, and I'm quite surprised that Birthday, scum or town, didn't have a similar explanation. You're basically trying to say that because I was shown to be wrong, I must be scum.

b) Post 459. I discussed this in Post 551. Her language use here is highly suspect. "I may have" or "perhaps it was just" or "this has aged well (what does that even mean?)." This doesn't express confidence or truthfulness at all. Either you did or you did not change your mind, there is no "may" about it. I think this is scummy. If she truly had a change of heart regarding the usefulness of the SK discussion, I doubt her post would read like an elaborate cover up. Again, I think she changed her mind because she needed more dirt on Mykonian, and here is where her slippery behavior caught up to her and she had to try to cover her butt.

"Has aged well" meaning that it has remained fairly clear in retrospect. Though we are entrenched in our own arguments here in the present, there's still valid information from that SK debate for later, particularly once we have more of an idea what roles are involved in this game. Even without that, I think there are some interesting things to note amongst the "stupid" comments. I think we can analyze

why

they are "stupid" and see some motives behind it. I still think that a lot of what was said was pointless at face value. However, I think it's something worth taking a deeper look into, looking at why people said the things they said, why Mykonian and Panzer pushed for an SK hunt and things of that sort.

Also, as I've explained, reading all of it in one go made the whole thing seem really trivial at the time, but my view on it has changed since the characters have grown more definite. When I first read it, I was still trying to figure out who was who. It's like going into a room full of people you don't know and someone tells you that a bunch of them have been fighting over an issue; you're in a unique perspective since you weren't a part of that original discussion, you have almost no actual investment in the issue they are debating, and you can't really tell one person from another right away. That's the problem I was having.

c) Post 471 she lists GIEFF as last on her suspect list with Dour. Now in Post 580 she states that GIEFF was originally one of her most pro-town players because she didn't want to distinguish his play from Dour? Apparently Zilla found Gieff to be one of her top two townies, and didn't even bother to look into his play to make that judgment.

It's not even that I didn't bother to distinguish him

from Dour

that they were both off in their own world, locked in struggle with each other, and hardly commenting on the rest of the game. They were perhaps the last people to come in with unique identities to me. You couldn't look at GIEFF without talking about his relationship with Dour, and vice versa. Since they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players, nor were they seeking easy targets, they seemed most likely to be town in a village full of people looking like scum.

You're preying on my replacement heuristics more than anything here.

5. Inconsistencies/Scummy behavior.

a) Defending BB without an understanding of my case against him. I gave 3 "off the cuff 1 liners" as my vote reasoning. She instantly attributed my case against him as poor for that reason (note above where she employs the same vote style to Mykonian), but yet she didn't even understand the extent of my case. She didn't know what his "suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon" was, yet rejected my case despite being in the dark there. When I did go into detail regarding that, she argued it was a bad case despite having a very incomplete understanding of the situation.

You refused to elaborate on Birthday for a solid 2 pages, and you pretty much flat out refused to build a case. While this wasn't my initial reason for voting you, that doesn't invalidate that argument. Yes, I didn't have all the facts and I was hitting the ground running on it, but, again, your stated reasons were weak. You're also trying to promote that I attacked them because they were 3 "off the cuff one-liners," when that was only part of my attack. My other points include that "lack of scumhunting" isn't anything to guarantee scum, and the "suspicious disengage" needed clarification. Even the "lack of solid stances" isn't a very solid scumtell in all.

Yet, you're saying my only problem with your case is the manner in which you present it. That only comes into play when I say you need to give him more to answer for.

b) This has been brought up before, but she was not voting or pursuing Birthday despite him being her top suspect. At post 387, she listed Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and myself at 20% in terms of suspicion. Later on, she notes that Birthday was at 75%, and that her suspicion level regarding Birthday had not changed from the time of that post.

I'm going to interrupt you here because this was already answered. Twice.
Actually three times.

Why then, was she not voting for, or pressuring Birthday whatsoever, despite him being her top suspect?

Again, he wasn't my top suspect.

Instead, she was pressuring me (20%)

Answered already.

and her pressure was because I linked to a post detailing my suspicion of Panzer, rather than retype it. Zilla didn't even bother to check that link, because she proceeded to argue against 240, not 295, the post that I had linked.

Oh my god, did you not read this post?

On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely,

the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion.

Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

So rather than attack her top suspect, Birthday, she attacked me, over something entirely meaningless and a misrepresentation (post 240 rather than 295).

I believe this entire quote is completely refuted.

c) However, and I point this out very clearly in Post 554, Zilla then goes on to vote for BB, despite arguing that I was her top suspect over and over again with GIEFF, and despite the idea that BB is less likely to be scum if I am scum.

What, so now you know that you are my top suspect? Pick a side! Also, this was already addressed.

Furthermore, in a couple of places, she responds in a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do" manner, which is suspicious because GIEFF and myself are two players she linked as scum. Why would she ever want to do what her scum team said to do? For reference: Post 575 and Post 592. The first post is a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do post" and the 2nd is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and reflects her mindset of voting Birthday to avoid suspicion rather than because she legitimately believed him most likely to be scum. Again, why would she vote Birthday because the two people she paired as scum (myself, GIEFF) pressured her to do so? I will also note, that I told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

I've explained my reasons for voting Birthday, you and GIEFF egging me on notwithstanding.

d) Deflection. She loves to defend against a strawman of my arguments or turn it around and attack me "instead" of defending against the point I make. I give 3 examples of deflection in Post 551, although there are more places she does this.

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

Deflection. I never called you a tunneler, nor did I imply that tunneling is scummy in any way. I said that you threw on additional meaningless reasons to suspect me to beef up your case and make it seem more than it actually was, which is scummy. Nice deflection, though.

That's not deflection at all, unless you can prove not only that your "vote stretching" isn't a form of tunnelling, but also that I thought there was a difference at the time I posted that, and that somehow my answer isn't valid when I say that's how I construct my cases, and urge you to check my meta.

On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.

Deflection, again. I said that you were suspicious because of the hypocrisy. You have defended yourself exactly the same way I have, by "overreacting." Note my very first line of this post. You call me scummy for being hypersensitive and aggressive in my defense. You are guilty of the exact same thing. I called you out on the hypocrisy, and here we see you utilize deflection to try to avoid that point.

This isn't deflecting either. I'm saying you don't understand why I'm calling you aggressively defensive, and that I'm not in that category. Even if I were to concede that our defenses are the same, this still wouldn't be deflecting.

On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

Holy deflection and misrepresentation batman! I never said or implied that you were scummy for suspecting me. I said you were scummy because according to the Zilla percentage based analysis of who is scum, I was lower on the Zilla-scale than Birthday, yet you were not voting or attacking him whatsoever. Instead you were on me. This is a point I proved earlier in this post, using the evidence you so graciously gave me in your post. I said that I doubted you could back up your stance from a town standpoint, because I don't know how townie can back up ignoring their top suspect to pursue someone else.

This still isn't deflection, and, again, you're trying to say you weren't my top suspect, because some out-of-context answers to unquoted questions can be contrived to say that I thought you had a 20% chance of being scum based on your relationship with Panzer while I later thought that Birthday had a mutually independent chance of 75% to be scum.

=============

Good thing there is a preview button, here's more answering.

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I did shoot down that other reasoning. It looks like GIEFF just provided the links to prove it.

Over to GIEFF:

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.

I don't believe he really does answer the accusation that he's not accountable in that post. He answers everything with *gasp* a deflection! (Go read the thread).

subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.

He makes some good points, but there's the whole debate on "reading without a summary" that I don't agree with; as if players providing a summary somehow control my perception of the thread; as if I have to believe anything anyone says to me.

I'd have thought that having a nice concise summary (much like has been asked of Goat) would make case building and evaluating much easier, and anyone who really believed they had any kind of case would be perfectly fine in making a summary. The only ones who would fear it are people who are voting either for dubious reasons or on intentionally mistaken logic. That's almost always the case, from my experience. This may be something we just don't agree on, but there's not a whole lot to be done about it.

[*]In Zilla's next post, she doesn't specifically address ANYTHING that either Goat or subgenius said. If Zilla really felt these reasons were valid, I feel she would have shown some disagreement, instead of just ignoring them. At the end of this post, she says:

That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

A new reason is presented, although the previous reasons were shown to be faulty (yet not addressed by Zilla). This is the "extending the case" accusation, in action. It is odd that you say NOBODY owns their case, yet present this as a reason for voting for Goat. Why not apply it to anybody else?

They didn't refuse so vehemently; he was the first and the loudest. I attributed part of the further sentiments as just echoing and an attempt not to stick out. I'm almost certain that if the first response was a posted summary, there wouldn't be anybody else reluctant to give one.

[*]mykonian says, again, that your vote of Goat makes no sense.

militant agrees that your initial reasons are bad, and calls your latest reason (the "case-extender") "laughable."

Beyond_Birthday also tells Zilla why he doesn't agree with her logic.


If I had 5 players telling me my reasons for voting somebody were ridiculous, I would either try to refute them, or drop the case. Zilla did neither.

[*]In Zilla's next post, instead of explaining why she thinks her previous 4 reasons really are valid, and why the 5 people telling her they are NOT valid are all wrong, she comes up two more reasons (e. "aggressively defensive" and f. "he just switched is vote for poor reasons").

Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

Again, this is Zilla extending her case. She presented some reasons when she initially voted Goat. These were shot down. She didn't respond to the fact that they were shot down, and simply threw out a new reason. This new reason was also shot down, and instead of responding, she threw out TWO MORE reasons. Double-case extension.

You're skipping the parts where I defend asking for a summary:

Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.

We've got a mannequin in class. Before we ask the instructor anything about our code, we have to explain what our problem is to the mannequin. This is because in the middle of explaining it, we will often realize our own mistake, saving the instructor time.

I'm trying that approach here, because honestly, I haven't seen a case I've liked so far, and also honestly, I don't have a good feel on anybody. Most games, everybody is at least somewhat town. This game, it seems like everyone and their brother are scum.

or where I explain my position on the "he has no votes" bit.

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case. I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an FOS.

[*]In Goat's next post, he resonds to all of Zilla's accusations.

And in Zilla's "long, boring post" is when the first accusations of misrepresentation start. Many of Zilla's responses to Goat in this post don't respond to what Goat is saying, but simply say "that is false and a misrepresentation" and ignore the point that was trying to be made.

Heh, when I looked back at Goat's post, I was about to answer it again with the same accusations, because they

are

inaccurate.

He claims I'm voting him for his bad vote on Macavity, when I'm voting him for refusing to re-justify it. His initial reasons for voting Macavity aren't too shabby, but he really hadn't been pursuing Macavity at all, and it seemed insincere. The logic is there, but the conviction is not. I guess I thought everybody else knew that and didn't buy his take on it.

I'm reading those posts, and I can't see where I give the impression of not answering his points aside from the misunderstanding about my reasons for voting him. I continued on to explain that I was voting him because he refused to be accountable, which was scummy.

I didn't notice Zilla doing this until she did it to me, but reading back carefully now, it is as clear as day. And from that point forward, the back-and-forth between Goat and Zilla deteriorated into a he-said, she-said morass of quotes, misrepresentations, attacks, emotions, and unreadable wall-o-texts (which just means a big wall of text, i.e. a very long post).

Well, I hope I managed to suffice with my answer to Goat's case.

Back on Goat's point.

My initial case on BB was not weak. You still have not suggested in any way how three one line statements makes a case weak (and if you do actually believe this, your case on Mykonian would be similarly "weak"). I also have not extended my Birthday case, at all. Where have I done so? You really love to make accusations without any underlying backup.

Initially, the case was because he had demonstrated "a lack of scumhunting, a suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon, and a lack of solid stances." You refused to clarify the case for a while, then it grew to include parroting GIEFF's reasons for voting Panzer, not actually wanting to lynch Panzer despite saying you should only vote for someone you want to lynch, and, if you count count me including your manner of defense, Birthday's manner of defense.

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

I was joining a growing bandwagon on Birthday? Really? Mykonian was the only other vote. I championed the wagon entirely. Pulled reasons out of thin air? Damn, I must be a skilled magician, because Birthday agreed with my reasoning.

Ah, I just skimmed and saw Mykonian vote twice and thought it was two different people, and that there had been growing speculation on BB when I joined. As for the pulling reasons out of thin air, BB agreed with your much later justification of them, and I don't mean to imply they were totally baseless, but had a very marginal base to begin with. They seem like you didn't actually have a real case, and calling someone a wishy-washy non-scum-hunter with a "suspicious" disengage seems like something that doesn't take too much effort to build against somebody.

You need to make the rest of your post clearer. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes from, or what you're trying to even argue.

eh wot? you need to make your demand for clarification clearer, I have no idea which quotes you aren't sure about.

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

First of all, I mentioned that I was busy. Second of all, you didn't address anything even close to resembling my case on you. You pulled out random posts with stuff you wanted me to address or stuff I didn't address. If you wanted to address my case on you as found within the thread, you would have answered post 551 and 554. What you did here is essentially strawmanning. You pulled random quotes from god knows where and said "Goat didn't back this up, or goat hasn't qualified this, or Goat didn't address my complaint of him" and then argued against those specific points, essentially concluding my entire case is flawed, despite the fact that you haven't addressed the meat of my case at all. Fancy footwork there.

I think I must have missed most of 551/554 somehow, that was during a really busy time when I was on between classes and had lots of projects due. If it's really necessary, I'll go back and answer that monster as well.

[Zilla]

And, I just spent the better part of two hours on that post, so you'd better read it!

I'll be pretty peeved if I have to quote anything out of there again.

[Zilla]

First, on "lying about GIEFF," I didn't think GIEFF had actually been tunneling and even though he had an initial focus on Panzer, he dropped that when Dour challenged him, and then he and Dour traded blows ad infinitum.

The nature of their argument, however, is why they looked town, albeit that was because they didn't have much to say on the rest of the thread. What I was trying to say before is that they didn't actually have a lot of things to guage, and the things they were bickering about and the manner in which they were arguing, especially how they both had heat-up cooldown periods that had nothing to do with actual scumminess, made it seem like two townies arguing playstyle. Since they didn't have anything else to really comment on, and since the rest of the thread was loaded with scummy players, I listed them as my top town players. Even in my "case building exercise," my points on GIEFF and Dour are the weakest, at least in my book. I put lurking above their transgressions.

I should address the "accountability" thing; I didn't use that word until then, but that was the crux of my initial case on Goat to begin with. He refused to provide his own views on the current game. I didn't get around to explaining how that relates to accountability until later because, frankly, that kind of refusal doesn't usually happen, and most of the time, the town understands the reasoning that I had to explain.

On the "quick change" on GIEFF, it wasn't quick at all. [/url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 79#1493179]It started when you defended Goat at a level I felt was unreasonable.[/url]

Mounting suspicion.

Brief mention of GIEFF "attempting to control my vote".

Addressing misconceptions from GIEFF.

My suspicion on GIEFF

was

entirely based on his "alliance" with Goat, similar issues between his and Goat's cases, and how it seemed like he and Goat were essentially the same alignment. Now he's being quite pro-town in his approach, although that doesn't instantly indicate a town player. He's never been my top suspect or anything, and at most, I saw him as an accomplice for borrowing Goat's flawed logic.

I could similarly post my quite large case on Goat, but it really seems like no matter what I do, Goat won't be lynched. I don't recall any other time I've been in this position before. Usually, even if my case is flawed, scum will jump on because there's a case they don't have to be accountable for, and usually my cases aren't as ignored as they have been in this one.

So, with reluctance,

unvote: Goat

I'm willing to lynch Mykonian or Panzer, and to a lesser degree, BB. Panzer and Mykonian have been crazy scummy lately, and they've been scummy more consistantly throughout the thread. I still feel Mykonian is a better choice than Panzer. I'm less inclined to lynch BB because he hasn't been as consistently scummy aside from refusing to answer for his outstanding accusations.

[Zilla]

First, on "lying about GIEFF," I didn't think GIEFF had actually been tunneling and even though he had an initial focus on Panzer, he dropped that when Dour challenged him, and then he and Dour traded blows ad infinitum.

This isn't what happened; Dour and I "traded blows" first, and then I focused on Panzer.

Really, I thought Dour was attacking you for tunneling on Panzer, I wasn't counting his original attack on you over the lack of voting.

I'm not claiming because I don't need to. I wanted to see Goat's case, to see if it was valid, and if I still needed to claim afterward. I don't think I need to.

Goat's case is based on "catching" me at inconsistencies, which translates to, either intentionally or not, misunderstanding and misrepresenting me, or tunnelvisioning.

New direction time.

The only person Mykonian has been really attacking this game has been GIEFF, and that's for attacking Panzer and me. I don't think there's any reason he would do this as town. His reasons for thinking people are town are quite subjective and flimsy. He voted Birthday because "His notes are annoying and appear too often" despite making an entire post about how GIEFF doesn't have a case and agreeing with Birthday.

Vote: Mykonian

[Zilla]

Mykonian's first vote on Birthday is extremely perplexing. He has said absolutely nothing about Birthday before voting him, and the line before that, he is agreeing with a point that Birthday didn't even make on GIEFF.

Most of his game past that point seems to be at the exact same level. He focuses on GIEFF because he says he doesn't buy GIEFF's case on Panzer lying about his voting reasons. There's this little perplexing bit as well:

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

I can't see a towny push a case like yours, and not dropping it on the moment people point out to him that early play, and lies in early play, are not hard scumtells. You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

His heirarchy of what is good and what is not good is odd at best. I can understand how it gets less good when the case is based on a weak vote on someone, but OF COURSE GIEFF thinks Panzer is scummy. It'd be horrible if he had a case on Panzer and thought he was town. Adding in that he lied about why he voted, and then admitted to it, I don't see how that makes GIEFF's case on Panzer weaker.

Here, Mykonian quotes an apt post by Militant about his case on GIEFF.

Mykonian never really brings up how Panzer's lie isn't a scumtell, instead he pretends it's been proven because "it doesn't benefit scum," according to his speculation. That's a pretty WIFOM assumption to make.

There's also that he cautions Panzer on voting me, even though Panzer's reasons for voting me, at least according to Mykonian, are similar to his own reasons for voting GIEFF. Both were voting because their target was pushing a "weak" case, and interestingly enough, GIEFF's case was on Panzer, while my case was on Mykonian.

This calls to mind the image of two gunslingers back to back, spinning around each other and blasting their enemies.

There's this contradictory stance, where he says

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

But previously, he said:

I think I have showed what I think about that lying, and that I have said that a towny had no reason to do that. However, scum would have had no reason to lie there either. At least, when I'm scum, I try not to lie a single time, because it is so easy to catch you then. So I wouldn't understand why any player would lie, and that's why I get to my conclusion that this must be imperfect play.

This post is fishy, specifically how he can believe GIEFF but also not believe GIEFF at the same time.

Hmm.. this post is interesting in that he accuses GIEFF of extending his case much the same as Goat accused me of. Goat's thoughts on a supposedly pro-town player pointing this out on another supposedly pro-town player?


Mykonian continues asserting that GIEFF is trying to lynch Panzer on policy of LAL, though he refuted it.

This post, specifically, this part:

However, that doesn't mean that Zilla can't be useful to town: Just look at the reactions of people to her.

are strange; he hasn't provided any of his analysis on "the reactions of people to [me]." I'd like to see what he thinks I've exposed via reactions to me.

This post is noteworthy for this:

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

This is the first mention of GIEFF's motivation being to take out an aggressive player early. He didn't say this before, I don't think this was part of his case at all.

Here, he posts his reads on people. Some of them are quite odd, quite wrong.

[quote="Mykonian]Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.[/quote]

Voted for distancing? I don't recall that being a part of his case at all. He was voted for admitting to being scummy and taking a "I was scummy, so what?" stance, and for admitting that Goat's case "reaches the right conclusions."

Zilla Replacing dejkha: annoying nitpicking and the next easy target.[/url]

If I'm the next easy target, who is it that is targetting me?

Dourgrim: flying under the radar to me. Should have looked at him closer

This is something that is sketchy to begin with and ought to be corrected. He hasn't said anything about Dour since.

GIEFF: my best bet now. He exited his case against panzer with an unfalsifiable argument, and was on both BB and Zilla's wagon in time.

I can buy this read after reading him in isolation, though this is the first time he's commented on GIEFF "bandwagoning."

Goatrevolt: protown

No elaboration, despite him also being on the BB and Zilla cases?

qwints Replacing MacavityLock: plain lurking, no read because of that.

This is acceptable, qwints himself hasn't participated much, though it would be good to explain your stance on Macavity when he was active.

militant: no idea where he stands, was late on BB.

Also joined my case. If you're going to peg GIEFF for it, you may as well be consistent.

Panzerjager: I gamble now he had just a shaky start, and that it will never be explained. Although he has not been so prominent lately.

This is not a read. I suspect he's out of reasons to call him pro-town.

springlullaby: I always think spring scum. Seems to take weird stances on purpose, and on the other hand is easily active lurking.

Ironically fitting, and Spring really does need to participate more.

subgenius: LURKER! This was the only one that I needed to look at the posts he made to know what he did. You should do it too...

And what were the results of looking at what he did? There is no read here. Also, I think he's been more active than Spring. You didn't seem to have a problem finding Militant's stance.

ting =): protown. I usually agree with his posts.

Just because you agree with him? I thoguht you said scum don't have to lie except for their conclusions, couldn't he be leading you astray under that logic? There's no reason to think someone is pro-town just because you agree with them.

Here's where he says that if I don't claim, we are lynching a townie. Possibly rolefishing? He does not support the wagon, but he wants a claim anyway. What a strange position to take.

He then says it's "a way of saying it." I don't buy it. His entire logic for asking me to claim is that it would prevent my lynch; why would he ask for my claim if he didn't want to lynch me in the first place? The only motivation I can think of is scum trying to get role information from someone they don't expect to actually lynch.

Oh, here's a telling bit:

agreed, it won't be better then a random lynch. But on the other hand, what do we lose when she is a towny? close to nothing. Otherwise scum will just leave her in the game, and we'll be sitting here with an inactive player.

He seems to try to justify lynching spring as a townie because we "Don't lose much" and that scum will keep her in the game if we don't lynch her. It seems to set up for the case that she's actually scum, and that's why she's not being killed, while he just wants town to think scum is keeping her alive for being quiet. I can't read this without being suspicious.

Here, I'm confused over why he is accusing GIEFF of mislynching me when he says he doesn't want to lynch me. Again, he's trying to say I'm automatic town.

Here, he seems to imply that he wants me to claim, and then lynch me, or something. Prior to this, he seems to want me to claim to avoid lynching me, now he phrases it as though I should be lynched after I claim.

This is quite interesting, especially "Tunneling is anti-town" and "The thing that bothers me most is the fact that you can be called protown for not having a stance on the rest of the game..." That's quite interesting coming from someone who has only attacked GIEFF and hasn't offered a solid stance on the rest of the game, other than Panzer me being protown most of the time.

[Zilla]

As GIEFF said when paraphrasing an infamous dictator, repeat a lie enough and it will become truth.

Goat has done this to me, and he shows it in his last post.

Zilla: A, B, C
Goat: A, B, C, are wrong
Zilla: D, E, F
Goat: D, E, F are wrong
Zilla: G, H, where G is the way you said D, E, F were wrong
Goat: Unbelievable...

This isn't at all what the case was, he likes to try to simplify it with letters so he can misconstrue it more easily. I can't address all of the problems using the same simple letter format, though I can address one, and that is that I don't drop my cases, he simply ignores them.

Zilla: A, supporting evidence B and C.
Goat: B is wrong, A must be wrong. Also, C is right, but isn't scummy.
Zilla: A, supporting evidence B isn't wrong, C is scummy, also case D with supporting evidence E and F.
Goat: I already proved B was wrong, A must be wrong, C is still right, but still not scummy. D is wrong because you misunderstand E, and F is just deflection.
Zilla: A, because B wasn't refuted, your defense of E shows you don't understand my accusation, how can F be deflection when I'm attacking, D is still valid, also your shoddy answers constitute case G.
Goat: I won't mention A anymore, E is still wrong, F and G are both deflection, and now I present case 1 on Zilla.
Zilla: Case 1 is misrepresentation, you didn't answer A, so I won't mention it either, F and G aren't deflection.




You get the point. If you want, I WILL summarize my case on Goat... again. I don't think he answered the last summary very well either.

I should further point out that even since my rebuttal to Goat's case, GIEFF is fond of saying that I lied about my reasons for something. Show me where. There hasn't been a specific accusation that I haven't answered. It honestly feels like repeating a lie to make it truth, and then that truth is self-perpetuated.

If it's my reasons for voting Goat, he never answered for being unaccountable, trying to shut down information sources, having to fight tooth and nail to get him to give his current account of players, his hem-haw stance on Panzer (suddenly must be town because I'm scum, and because Panzer is voting for me), his chainsaw defense of both Panzer and Mykonian... and this is all from right when I replaced in!

I've "extended" my case due to his misrepresentations on me, poor answers to those accusations, mistaken accounts of me, possible links to other scummy players given how those players interact with him, tunneling, and, I guess I'll have to admit, because we were locked in conflict.

Now, can someone show me where I lied?

[Zilla]

Also, after reading Mykonian, I still find him scummy, but I do have to say that reading him in isolation wasn't as damning as I thought it would be. I'm still HIGHLY critical that he was pushing for a policy lynch on SpringLulliby. That would be a waste of a day unless she was scum, and he doesn't feel she actually has a good chance of being scum. It's basically a call to go to night, and it's doubly beneficial for scum because, if they know SL is town, they're going to bag a free townie for the day.

Also, I saw that GIEFF called Mykonian out on his vote on SL, and Mykonian changed his vote to GIEFF. When I read the baiting in GIEFF's post, I thought to myself that Mykonian was going to switch, and he did.

I'm still very critical of Panzer, and I feel he is a good choice for a lynch today as well. I'll read him in isolation next. It may be that he is a better choice than Mykonian, though at present, I feel Mykonian is scummier. I still think they are a likely pair.

[Zilla]

Lurker lynching would be acceptable if there was no activity and no valid targets; as it stands, there are many valid targets, heated discussion, and many cases that are well established. I'll admit lurking scum would get away with murder here, but you advocated lynching Spring even when you felt that GIEFF was likely to be scum. That makes no sense.

[Zilla]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

[Zilla]

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

[Zilla]

On GIEFF/Dourgrim being town, you're either not seeing what I'm saying or choosing to ignore it. I didn't count his opinion on Panzer, I didn't even know he had anything on BB. I said he HAD been suspicious of Panzer, but he dropped that and instead focused on Dour, and Dour focused on him. I said this already.

I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."

Explain to me:

Your vote change to BB from me back in post 544. What, specifically, at that point in time made you think BB was a better place for your vote to be?

Partially because he was viewed as mutually exclusive scum at the time (I didn't see your attack as a bus job at that point) with an also high-chance of being scum, and I didn't like that contradiction existing. If it turned out that he was scum (which, independent of his connection to someone else I felt was scum), I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on you. The other part was because it seemed like nobody was seeing my points, so my vote wasn't accomplishing anything being the solitary vote on you. I still felt you were scummy, and when you drop Birthday at L-2, something looks fishy.

Your recent unvote on me. What specifically made you feel your vote was no longer worthwhile being on me. You had just finished a monster of a post, where you accuse me repeatedly of misrepresentations and strawmanning a strawman definition, etc. What about that caused you to unvote me?

Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.

Secondly, I want you to explain this: Here you mention that Birthday-scum would partially absolve me of being scum. Yet, here you say you suspect 2 or 3 of Me, GIEFF, Birthday to be scum. What was the difference. Why at one point am I not likely to be a scum buddy to Birthday, but at another point I can be one?

The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.

Later, I consider exactly

why

you were pursuing him all day and suddenly drop him when I climb on, and I come to the conclusion that you honestly did intend to lynch him until I jumped on, which made me think you got nervous when I mentioned that lynching Birthday would give more information about you. If Birthday was scum, that'd partially absolve you because, if I was right in thinking your intention to lynch him was sincere, you would be doing that from a town mindset. I could have been wrong about that though, hence "partially," since nothing is certain. If he was town and you were sincere about lynching him, that really makes me think you were knowing scum that jumped ship when you realized your accountability. If he was town and you weren't sincere, heck, no matter his alignment and you're not sincere, you're obviously pulling something scummy.

Furthermore, in that 2nd post, you note that Birthday is your most likely to be scum out of us 3, yet in the first linked post you state that Birthday wasn't your top suspect, I was. Those are two contradictory ideas.

BB was only my top suspect that, if two out of the three of GIEFF, Goat, and BB had to be scum, he was least likely to be the isolated townie of the bunch, from direct and indirect evidence. Perhaps it's better to say that "It's least likely that Goat and GIEFF are scum while Birthday is town."

Ting/Qwints I find scummy. Not really for the lurking aspect, as it's a long, fast-paced game with giant posts, but more for the lack of solid stances. Ting has made good points and comments, but has made little in terms of actual stances (actually, subgenius fits that category as well). I want Qwints to further explain his vote on Birthday, and explain what happened to his original Panzer/Mykonian suspicion.

I'd definately like to hear more from them. Ting doesn't strike me as scummy so much, considering that his lack of stances coincides with his lack of posts. I'm only giving him the suspicion of being a lurker at this point. Qwints, though, really ought to explain where his suspicion of Panzer/Mykonian went. It seemed like he came in strong against them.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

BB is looking much more scummy then, his attention goes to the people that are already voted. Bit bandwagony, then. What he brings up against GIEFF makes me think that I could be right about GIEFF, and he has a reason to go that way, in case GIEFF is going to be lynched.

I think little changes about Zilla, then.

So, I won't vote Panzer, I could vote Zilla, if needed, but only on BB I have serious suspicions (in case GIEFF is not scum)

I REALLY don't like this. He suddenly says BB is scummy if GIEFF is town, but he buys his reasoning against GIEFF, and says that he considers it validation. He then says he would possibly vote me, though he doesn't find me scummy, and that he suspects BB only if GIEFF isn't scum, yet he also says that he doesn't suspect Panzer entirely because he thinks GIEFF is scum. That makes no sense. If GIEFF is town, that should implicate both panzer and BB.

Mykonian's next post; I could have sworn Mykonian agreed that Panzer lied.

Your play however, does fit in with classical scum: take out small bits, twist them a bit, point out how they are scummy, use a "big" word for it and hope it carries a weak town to a lynch.

Why is Goat absolved from this?



Here is where I begin my journey to read Panzer.

[Zilla]

Panzer strikes me as protown all the way up through post 17; his analysis is the valid part of the SK argument (which he later called me scummy for "double speak" about, though it was my fault for not being clear).

Post 17, though, contains the "I didn't realize it was a joke" despite all his previous posts indicating that he knew it was a joke.

This bugs me:

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

"attempt to scumhunt" is kind of a strange phrase to use here, and this entire phrase is kind of strange. It's possible that he's only "attempting" to scumhunt to put on a show, and the notion that his only option is to ignore the actual cause of the hole and instead try to scumhunt to provide an image of towniness seems like an option only available to scum.

This post seems dodgy, how he is suddenly critical of Spring picking stances. THIS is what deflection is, I have no idea what operative definition Goat's been using, but this is where Panzer goes "That's nonsense... and hey, look over here!"

There's an argument on this phrase:

I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies

I don't see this as a slip at all, but his reaction to it is kinda strange. He says that he didn't want to type out Dejkha's name. I don't get that feeling at all; he's trying to make a point that SL might either not be reading, or she might be mafia looking for easy town targets. Using Dejkha there renders his accusation somewhat null. His reaction, saying that it wasn't a slip, could be mafia paranoid that they did actually commit a slip and trying to smother the fire before it burns out of control, despite not actually having slipped in the first place.

Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him slips were minor tells and simply told him I'd just be keeping my eye on him. Regardless of the debacle afterward, you're blowing an IGMEOY out of purportion in a way that is leading me to believe you are rolefishing scum. FoS:Gieff

This also bugs me; apparently his vote on Mykonian wasn't serious, despite earlier claims that it was. If he was originally serious, this could be a scummy retraction when he sees that his push isn't going anywhere. If he wasn't serious, he and Mykonian could be scum buddies.

Now on to 240, specifically the scum slip part of Goatrevolt's posted. I felt it was huge in terms of scum slips. It was one that slapped me across the face. It has nothing to do with whether or not scum slips are a big or little scum tell. In regards to "I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing" I believe I posted that page 2. Page 2, a scum slip IS a big deal. Page 9-10, less so. The reason scum slips are a weak tell is actually being largely displayed in this thread. First of, you can read a post several different ways. Second, the context of the post can change from your first look and your second look. Third, it could largely be semantics issues in which I think a lot of my "slips" That GIEFF has pointed out I believe are.

**********************
* THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!! *
**********************
Panzer no longer buys slips, he says that Mykonian's slip is actually valid because it is early in the game, but later, he says that he doesn't see Mykonian as scummy, and he also says that his vote on Mykonian was not serious.


Wow, as soon as I replace in, he drops in scumhunting, activity, and accountability. Half of his posts are prior to my replacement.

Here he says he can't see Mykonian is scummy.

Yes GIEFF because I don't see how Mykonian is scummy. Also I don't understand why you do.

This lends credence to the idea that he and Mykonian were partners, and his initial vote on him was not serious.

Here he outlines his case on me, based on either misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If you read my quotes without his comments, they should make sense. I say that I acknowledge that the first person to mention a serial killer in a closed game on day 1 might be the serial killer, and, because it's a valid point, I use it in my case. He says it's scummy to say that the argument has gotten out of hand, even though it's base tenet is valid, and use the perfectly valid part of the argument as a point. I dislike it.

@Dour, Yes I understand, I don't agree, but It's a difference of opinion. I believe I've been actively contributing to this game. I have raised some valid and even original at the time points as of late. I don't find anything wrong with my one liners.

Haranguing me over using the SK thing in my argument is the only thing he brought up for a while, it's easy to see when you read him in isolation.

In fact, he says nothing of interest other than demands for me to claim and asserting that I'm "obviously scum" (parroting Goat) the whole time, until his latest post.

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

Not only did he miss GIEFF's explanation, he says my thing was a scumtell when I've already explained my reasons (many times). I think it's just a chainsaw defense of mykonian at this point.

If nobody is willing to lynch Mykonian (still preferable to panzer),

unvote: Mykonian
Vote: Panzer

His late play has been active lurking, all of his opinions past "Zilla using the SK argument in her case on Mykonian is scummy" have just been echoes of either Goat or Dourgrm, there's the inherent contradiction over whether his Mykonian vote was serious or not, and whether he actually thought Mykonian was joking or not, his suspicion on Mykonian has evaporated for no apparent reason, he fluxuates between the leading bandwagons with no stated reasons, instead referring to his old case from PAGES TEN TO TWELVE.

[Zilla]

I didn't count his opinion on Panzer

Why not? GIEFF v. Panzer was the predominant case in the game at that point. GIEFF/Dour may have been the most discussion dominating, but neither of them were really "sold" on the other as scum, and they were kind of just arguing without actually pushing the envelop.

Panzer had the biggest wagon, which GIEFF was pushing. There was GIEFF v. Mykonian, which branched off as a result of GIEFF's push on Panzer, etc. Why was the progenitor of the biggest wagon in the game not "count" worthy?

Lulz cuz I'm scum, only town know exactly where everyone stands at any point. Look at GIEFF's posts, about 1/5 "push" Panzer, the rest are spent arguing with Dour.

Oh, I keep forgetting to note that you're "Extending" your case with this argument. That shouldn't invalidate this argument, but it should definately invalidate both your "case extention" argument (interstingly, one I refuted already, so you dropped and instead extended your case with this one) and your hypocrisy argument.

I didn't even know he had anything on BB.

Post 381. You questioned him on how his stance on BB related to his opinion on Panzer. Apparently, that stance on Panzer doesn't count, and you didn't know he had one on BB, though.

That was your stance on BB that he agreed with, not his own. This is all completely irrelevant to why I thought GIEFF and Dour were protown. To borrow a phrase from mykonian, you're "assuming perfect play." Just because GIEFF was pushing Panzer and echoed your thoughts on Birthday doesn't mean I couldn't list him as protown with Dour, and the fact that they were locked in struggle is not the sole condition of being town, like you're trying to sell it as. Their comments in general seemed to be from a pro-town standpont; their questions, both to each other, and in GIEFF's case, to his suspects, were genuine, and they both have a pro-town feel to them. Asking why I think they are protown, you're going to get me trying to logically rationalize why I think they are protown.

I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."

And then you could lynch me for lying or distorting the truth or what have you. Do you seriously think I can get away with claiming it was "an old opinion" when I directly linked to that post in response to a question asking me point blank: "what is your

current

stance on Panzer?" And then, when you asked me 3 more times, I responded "That opinion is my current opinion." If I could somehow get away with saying "it was an old opinion" after all that, then I must have godlike manipulation powers.

It's so easy to just link to an earlier opinion. If I answered all your accusations only with links to my earlier arguments where I already answered them, you wouldn't have a case at all on me. You are using contradictions as your method of scumhunting. Linking to old posts without providing current opinions is the easy way to avoid creating those contradictions.

Pairing these two things, I can understand why you'd backlink instead of give your opinion as scum; you're trying to use possible contradictions to "hunt" scum, so you wouldn't want to leave those possible contradictions yourself, lest you be caught.

I don't buy this explanation, at all. You know this is weak. When I asked for your current stance on Birthday, you exclaimed it was obvious and linked back to an earlier post. Why the double standard?

I already answered this. Now I get to flip shit for linking to my megapost. I should also note here that I'm totally fine with backlinking arguments that are still valid. It's opinions that matter, because those change due to circumstances, while arguments are far more static.

Quite frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read 295. If you had actually looked through that post to see my opinion on Panzer, you would have found it. My guess is that you glanced at the post, saw that it was the one where I had elaborated on Post 240, and then just went straight to 240 without actually reading it.

I read it and they weren't your current opinions. I answered this already, and very recently.

In fact, I first address it here:

I didn't ask for a link. I asked what you currently thought of panzer. I want an original statement from you right now that you can be held accountable for on where you stand on Panzer. The only reason I can think that you continue to link to your "both sides of the fence" stance that I FOS'd you for is that you know it will be politically risky to say anything definite about panzer.

You are selectively looking at half the picture. You keep ignoring the fact that I had just finished a giant case on you. You keep saying stuff like "I unvoted Birthday because Zilla voted him" which completely ignores the mammoth posts where I expressed my suspicion of you.

Do you seriously suspect town to be that unassuming that they don't think scum can manufacture this? Moreover, I still assert your entire case on me is deliberately fabricated to begin with, not to mention all the "extentions" you've put onto it. This is a WIFOM defense at best, and I posit that it's scummy to resort to a WIFOM defense because it means you thought of how to construe it as town when you did it.

Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.

I'm not a lynch candidate because I haven't been scummy.

Subjective, also, this assertion is an attempt at "repeating a lie to make it true."

You've slung a lot of mud at me, but none of your points really carry any weight, because they aren't based on truth.

Glittering generality with no proof.

You may try to argue that I haven't been accountable because I gave a link to an opinion rather than retyping out said opinion, but the rest of the game can easily identify that it's a weak argument.

A leading statement and a prompting suggestion, where you're leading the town to believe it is a weak argument and prompting them to "prove their worth" by "easily identifying" it as a weak argument for you, though you offer no proof yourself.

The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.

Again, see above. I was sincere about wanting to lynch Birthday. If I wasn't sincere about a desire to lynch Birthday, I would not push the case nearly as hard as I did. That makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is trying to bus a scumbuddy.

That is exactly the kind of WIFOM argument scum would want town to buy. If there's any time someone defends themselves by saying "There is no way scum would do this, it's too scummy," it's a WIFOM situation. Scum are capable of doing anything, they can even be the most vocal proponents for lynching their don on day 1. It makes sense from the standpoint that you would do it to gain reputation.

1. This starts from the assumption that I am scum. You are trying to justify how my actions make sense in this scenario, but you are starting from the initial condition that I am scum.

How is this different from what you're doing to me? I always hunt scum by taking a player and assuming they are scum and seeing how well that theory holds up to scrutiny and evidence. If I start with the initial condition that you are scum, and the evidence supports it, there's valid reason to assume that theory is right.

2. As I said before, you ignore half the picture.

You're trying to fit how my actions make sense based on Birthday alone.

You ignore that I dropped Birthday and went to you because of a giant case I just outlined against you.

This is the exact same thing as 1, why are you trying to make two separate points that are the same thing? I also don't understand the underlined sentence. I'm investigating the possible motivation for the disengage taking into account a fabricated case and suspicious timing. This is about leaving Birthday when he was at L-2, regardless of his alignment.

[Zilla]

Zilla (4): Beyond_Birthday, Goatrevolt, Panzerjager Dourgrim
Panzerjager (4): ting=), subgenius, Zilla, qwints
Beyond_Birthday (2): GIEFF, springlullaby
GIEFF (1): mykonian

Not Voting:

militant,


Here's an unofficial votecount.

[Zilla]

Panzer, you didn't even read my post. I said everything PAST your accusation on me.

You're also still voting me for using a valid reason in my vote on Mykonian, and since then, you've only commented that I've been ahead of Birthday in your suspicions (also ahead of him in votes. Any way the wind blows?) with no reasons.

[Zilla]

Where IS militant?

[Zilla]

I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer

This also doesn't explain why you switched to Birthday.

[Zilla]

^ OMG YOU TOO?! That's MY role!

I'm guessing BB is the boogeyman, and he's going to get us! XD

[Zilla]

Mykonian seems to be doing less hunting than the lurkers who are showing up.

I'd support a qwints lynch at this current point, given how he hasn't responded to allegations against him, and he ignored the call for reasoning on why he switches his votes.

I'm busy today, I don't have time to write huge quote-war posts with Goat, which is a shame because I think at least half of his points are new material.

My suspicion of Panzer is independent of his "lie" about being serious or not, I'm still fine with my vote there considering how he hasn't even tried to participate ever since he stuck his vote on me.

[Zilla]

Goat, Mykonian, Panzer.

They're my top three, and I also have reason to suspect they are linked.

Goat: use of misinformation, manipulation, obvious tunneling on me, irrational defense of Panzer, contradictory stance on panzer, uncooperative nature toward being held accountable, suspicious disengage from Birthday...

Mykonian: Little-to-no scumhunting, unexplained rise in suspicion of Panzer solely because he now claims to understand GIEFF, the whole "I get GIEFF's argument, wait no I don't." Asking for me to claim without wanting me lynched, calling Goat pro-town with no evidence, irrational defense of Panzer initially, wanting to lynch SpringLulliby despite the plethora of more valid targets...

Panzer: Highly lacking in original scumhunting content, active lurking, refusing to read posts, desperate for my claim, tunneling, possible links to Goat/Mykonian, an "anyone but me" mentality (could he be self-aligned?), and his lynch gives information on a lot of the game.

I may have to reconsider my priority on Goat after compiling my reasons on my top suspects, as Mykonian has a longer and more detailed list. Goat has repeat offenses and higher magnitude however, and a more transparent agenda. Then again, the lack of agenda is possibly scummy.

[Zilla]

Militant, you may have now noticed by the last votecount that I AM voting for Panzer.

I agree with GIEFF here, Mykonian completely changed his tune very, VERY quickly, over information he already had, and now thinks Panzer may be scum, which means his entire rationale behind him being town was that GIEFF was attacking him, and he thought GIEFF was scum for attacking Panzer...

Militant's question to Dour is important; why are you voting me if you prefer a Panzer lynch and Panzer is more likely to be lynched?

Mykonian has not been doing any scumhunting, and even his reason for having us list our top three smells like scum trying to steer a lynch.

[Zilla]

I'd definately like to see Mykonian explain how GIEFF was scum for attacking panzer and panzer was town for being attacked by GIEFF.

[Zilla]

lol @ crosspost.

Mistaken case or not, you held that Panzer had to be town and GIEFF had to be scum. You tunnneled on him, and you heavily defended Panzer, especially wierd considering his initial attack on you. Suddenly, because you "suddenly realize" (though this happened before, so you claimed) that GIEFF's case was not mistaken, everything changes.

I don't like this hairpin turn. Why was the case so tunnelvisioned that it was based on one small detail?

In fact, you claim you don't "nitpick" but now your ONLY thing you've done for scumhunting is revealed to have been bringing up one person's "mistake" and continuing to push it, no matter how many times it was refuted and explained. And then, once that's refuted, your entire outlook is reversed.

Why was Panzer not scummy before? Are you saying right now that the only reason you find Panzer scummy is because GIEFF turned out to have a valid point that Panzer lied about thinking your vote was a joke?

[Zilla]

Panzer says he hasn't been lurking? Hah.

Here's his last contributing post,
and
the
posts
that
follow
contain
nothing
of
note

until this point, and the only thing he does in this is restate the same thing as his last post that had content.

back[/rul]
to
posts
with
no
real
or
original,
content
to
speak
of
even
if
we
don't
count
his
EBWOPs.
Occasionally
its
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... lf-defense

And NOW he gives another meaningful post

[Zilla]

Panzer: Suspects Zilla for using a valid point in her case on Mykonian, suspects BB for.. ??? and suspects qwints for possible connections to Zilla, already brought up by Goat.

Dourgrim, your vote is still on me. I'm assuming you haven't read the posts asking why during your busy schedule, but that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Mykonian, your defense still makes no sense, it's inconcievable. You haven't even really answered the accusation at hand, especially the one I put forward that you originally suspected GIEFF was scum for attacking Panzer and Panzer was town because he was being attacked by GIEFF.

[Zilla]

Consider me wanting to vote Mykonian as well, though I believe he and Panzer are related, and that Panzer is also likely scum. How I wish I could vote for the pair of 'em. I'll vote Mykonian to a tie with Panzer, meaning if Myk = Panzer - 2, I'll switch.

[Zilla]

... You felt good about panzer but your vote was on him until this point? And further, this post says nothing about why you feel panzer is town?

Your point on GIEFF holds water though, though I'm not so sure it's scum motivated instead of a poor town ploy.

[Zilla]

"If you love chocolate so much, why don't you martyr for it?" XD

[Zilla]

unvote: Panzer
vote: Qwints

Each of those answers comes with their own blatant contradiction. As per my recollection, his post where he does not mention BB came after BB admitted to anti-town behavior, and there was no reason not to mention this in his original post. This is flawed after-the-fact justification.

The second one, I don't see anywhere where he makes a point about confirmation bias in his posts.

Thirdly, this stance seems so generic, copied, and unsubstantiated that it doesn't feel genuine to me. Qwints has not explained anything about why he thinks I'm pro-town, refused to vote me, but considered my alleged "refusal to address claiming" worthy of asking for a claim and an FoS.

As for the "I thought it was self-evident" platform, I'll consider that a null-tell because it seems like a newbie move no matter how you look at it. The entire apathy toward the situation also is a WIFOM trap in and of itself.

I don't like that qwints, who was not in this game at the beginning, and replaced MacavityLock, is allegedly hung up on Panzer's early game. I find it rather shocking that at this stage, that's all that he has on Panzer.

[Zilla]

Panzer says he hasn't been lurking? Hah.

Here's his last contributing post,
and
the
posts
that
follow
contain
nothing
of
note

until this point, and the only thing he does in this is restate the same thing as his last post that had content.

back[/rul]
to
posts
with
no
real
or
original,
content
to
speak
of
even
if
we
don't
count
his
EBWOPs.
Occasionally
its
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... lf-defense

And NOW he gives another meaningful post

I beg to differ.

[Zilla]

I also think order of preference has something to do with it. BB is lower than panzer on just about every list that contains both of them.

[Zilla]

I feel our usual lurkers are slipping away again; Militant, SpringLulliby, a bit of ting=), Qwints definately, and it would be very nice if SensFan came in here to answer the questions we have for him.

[Zilla]

Are we still at L-1 on Panzer?

Otherwise, I'm switching back to him... (investigating vote count)

[Zilla]

Okay, it appears I was counted on Panzer anyway.

unvote: Qwints
Vote: Panzer

I'm in for the claim pressure, and I think we need this claim regardless of where SensFan is in rereading. It's entirely possible Sens and Panzer are scum and all Sens has to do is refrain from "catching up." Heck, even if Panzer is clean, Sens could pull that move just to screw town.

[Zilla]

What do we do now, wait for counterclaims?

You know though, that's also a sticky situation, since it would draw out a real cop if he was fake claiming just to guage reaction...

However, since Panzer isn't even my first choice, I'd personally not risk a cop when I have "better" targets to pursue.

unvote: panzer

As of now, I'm suspect of Mykonian (I still feel his answers to flipping around on panzer are totally unsatisfactory) and BB. Neither of the two have been hunting scum, at all. Almost half the game is pretty passive on this front as well. Qwints and Militant haven't really questioned anybody.

BB's latest post also rubs me the wrong way; just because panzer was accumulating the solid votes, he acts like he has nothing to worry about.

If I could, I'd vote both Mykonian and BB. We're very close to deadline, however...

vote: Mykonian

As for Goat, it seems he hasn't been using the same scummy tactics since his disengage with me. He still has his shady history with Panzer and Mykonian, so if either of them flips scum, there would be reason to suspect goat's motives.

[Zilla]

preference: panzer/qwints, then BB.

goat, this is going to take forever, if everybody should send another in. GIEFF, I can vote Panzer too.

What happened to Qwints? You also said nothing about BB. You didn't post a case on him at all, and you should have no trouble recounting it if you are serious about it.

[Zilla]

^ If you're clean, you sure don't show it.

I don't even understand what it is you're trying to say there, the closest I can come up with is "I accused mykonian of flaking on qwints because qwints is by scumbuddy."

Yeah, right.

[Zilla]

That was for Panzer, not GIEFF.

[Zilla]

A deadline lynches the player with the most votes, right? That's one reason I'm voting you over BB. If it comes down to the wire and you're not a lynch candidate, I'll switch my vote if necessary, but until we're absolutely sure we're settling in for the deadline, I'm voting my top suspect.

Also, you went and quoted a potentially obsolete opinion. >_< Is this exactly where you stand on Birthday now? What about his interim posting?

[Zilla]

I'm considering something,

In the event that we don't have a bodyguard (or whatever this forum's equivalent is), and panzer is telling the truth, he will likely die by scum tonight. If he lives through the night, it's either because we have a bodyguard, he's mafia, or the mafia are trying to set him up.

Furthermore, if he is mafia, he could be using this as a ploy to draw out the real cop, even with GIEFF's plan for having us claim "not-cop." It's a matter of priorities; would the real cop counter-claim just to bag one scum, or stay silent, gambling with their lives to try to catch more scum before they are forced to cash in their chips?

I'm not sure how these scenarios should be treated, but being aware of their existence is beneficial. The entire situation here is murky, and it's all contingent on what roles town may have.

For all we know, there IS no *real* cop, or we could also have two cops, one of them paranoid.

Personally, though, I think this will all be a lot easier to discuss day 2, when panzer ought to be able to supply some kind of confirmation of being cop (if he's alive, which we really have no control over), and we'll have a night of information to go on. I think there are other targets worth considering that don't trigger the WIFOM of whether he actually is a cop or not.

The downside is that we may end up outing more power roles, and that's not a good thing to do.

[Zilla]

A real cop wouldn't claim cop because that's the dumbest thing ever? I mean, it's kind of more based on play skill than anything, but that's what I would think.

Either that, or you're the cop, but even then, there's still the possibility of one paranoid and one sane, or two paranoid, etc.

But, no, I can't say I know how you know he's not the cop.

[Zilla]

Yeah, GIEFF, this is weird. If you've got a lead, what's the harm in sharing it?

[Zilla]

Goat, I gotta say, I think you're digging pretty deep for connections in some of those cases. For instance, when he says you might get more information from him if he is town, that doesn't indicate he's more likely to be town. "Accelerating the game to the night phase" is also a scumtell, and in fact seems like a more valid scumtell than a cop-tell. The "checking my role" bit wasn't likely serious.

I do agree about some of his paranoia over claiming helping to validate a bit, but scum could act the same way when being put to the test. I'd say it's more null than anything.

[Zilla]

I agree with everything below your dash-line in your big post, Goat, but you're trying to call the result of a WIFOM with the rushing to night logic. You're saying that it can't be a scumtell because it's obviously a scumtell. That's not sound reasoning.

I can understand the reasoning for the rolefishing comment increasing his chance to be a power role, but I don't necessarily agree with it. It benefits scum to say those things because their desire not to claim is even greater than a power-role's desire not to claim. It forces them to lie, which means they are much more easily exposed for that lie.

It's all rather irrelevant, though, and I think saying we are definitely going to lynch Panzer day 3 is actually not a bad plan. It's possible that it would keep him alive longer if he's telling the truth, since mafia wouldn't likely want to kill someone who will give them a free Day 3, and he can get two investigations.

No matter what, though, we ought to keep him alive today. Tomorrow we'll definately have more information on this game, and since he's already outed, he shouldn't have a problem sharing his results. If we decide that we are definitely going to lynch him Day 3, it will be confirmation on his results if he's the cop.

I do think we shouldn't just gallivant around pushing claims out of people though. Not that there's much we can do about it, I guess, because the alternative is lynching a possible power role, but having so many claims out on the field are only going to make it easy for the mafia who know which ones are valid and which ones are not.

[Zilla]

^ Expecially given the penchant for lurking we have in SL, Militant, Qwints, ting, Sens, etc, etc.

I think prodding Sens might be a good idea, just so he at least acknowledges whether he's still reading or whether he's dropped it.

[Zilla]

You've got some outstanding questions that require immediate attention, Sens.

[Zilla]

I thought there was some other issue back when Qwints was being questioned, but I don't remember what, exactly... *shrug*

[Zilla]

oy vey, no resposne from Birthday.

unvote: Mykonian
Vote: Beyond Birthday

Despite Mykonian being a better target, IMO, it seems nobody else thinks so, and it's time to move on.

[Zilla]

BB, I don't like the conditional addendum you have on your reasoning for qwints. You had to add the "without even acknowledging them" to try to differentiate between him and yourself, and even then, you're only escaping that definition by the trickiest of margins.

I don't like Qwints last post for his unvote, as GIEFF pointed out beautifully. I don't like Birthday, whose vote on me is this old, points this out and has been attacking Qwints but won't vote him.

Skip to *** for discussion of present game. From here to ***, I answer outstanding points BB has against me, and analyze his past behavior from a middle section I had ignored during the time I was preoccupied with Goat

I'm digging for Birthday's case on me. Initially, it was because I didn't agree with Goat's case, and thusly must have "known" Birthday was town. He sticks by this for forever, lots of "I still think Zilla is scummy," then pulls this out.

*Refusing to see Goat's point

And why isn't goat suspected for refusing to see my point, eh?

*Presenting nitpicked arguments.

I'm pretty sure this fell over later on scrutiny, and it seems more included because other people were saying it.

*Defending a townie (who is clearly scummy looking with true reasoning. However, only scum KNOW who is town) until the town's own argument proves this=false, thus ruining her claim to protecting the innocent for Day 2.

Original case; my entire defense was based on Goat's argument being wrong, not that BB had to be town, but that his case was flawed. I believe BB even agreed that his case was flawed, but

it reached the right conclusions

, which to me sounds like scum trying to own up to their behavior to weasel out of scummy actions.

*Having a poor defense of myself Day 1 that ignores facts.

Apparently I misunderstood them, and BB set me straight with his response to Goat's case.

*For being generally scummy in her play.

General statements aren't casemakers, and the same could be said of BB, especially since he acknowledged it.

*For refusing to take a stance on me for a majority of the day and only proceeds to attack me when pressed hard for it.

So now I've "refused to take a stance," when earlier, I was irrationally defending BB? To be certain, I hadn't really taken a stance because I was pretty focused on Goat, and a Myk/Panzer pair possibility. However, if you believe I hadn't taken a stance, then you can't also believe I was "defending someone who I knew to be town."

*Ignores, without acknowledging, Gieff's request policy to not vote me yet and use a "HOS" as to not risk a mis, quicklynch. I just feel that the complete refusal or acknowledgment is scummy. (Just to clarify)

I'd forgotten about the request and GIEFF's count was off. My count put BB at L-2.



Huh, rereading BB, there's some connection to Subgenius, who Sens replaced, and now he's establishing repoire with Sens. Is it possible they are scumbuddies? Is it possible he's "buddying up to town"?

******************

Okay, I've reread BB and he constantly agrees that qwints looks scummy, but continues to simply say "I still think Zilla is scum" every time he brings up these points. He flounders around a bit, sometimes it's either Qwints or Zilla, sometimes it's either GIEFF or Zilla. Lately, and strangely, it's been GIEFF/Zilla, despite Qwints lurking and making scummy posts.

Qwints voted Birthday back when Birthday first owned up to scummy behavior, and hasn't voted him since. I think claiming they aren't scum together would be premature, especially given his fluctuation between pairing me with Qwints and pairing me with GIEFF. If they're distancing, they're not doing a great job of it.

So, I guess I didn't directly address Birthday's argument before, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt in the arena of remaining suspicious of me for so long, but I'm very interested in why he's been switching between GIEFF and Qwints as his secondary suspects, and without ever addressing the other one.

For now, though, qwints has jumped past Birthday on my priority list, and I think there's strong enough support for him that we might be able to get somewhere, and we have more time until deadline.

Unvote: Birthday
Vote: Qwints

[Zilla]

BB, now Panzer is your third? Where'd GIEFF go on your list?

BRB, fact-checking about your stance on goat's case.

[Zilla]

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much. Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

Okay, so it's entirely valid (but parenthetically, it assumes the wrong things). The previous part of that post is all about what Goat "missed"

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.
[quote=""Goat"]So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

[/quote]

These are quite murky and echo the opinion that Goat has the right idea to call them scummy, but that his arguments aren't actually valid. So you've said you think Goat's case is valid explicitly, but inherently, you've pointed out where you think it's invalid.

[Zilla]

Well, I'd say if he's really a cop, he's at least useful as a lightning rod to direct mafia wrath away from other town. It's true he'd create WIFOM, but as long as he's not paranoid or insane or anything, we could at least try to get information out of him. Even if he turns out to be scum, it's possible his claims will give us information as well (though that information is also subject to WIFOM).

[Zilla]

... Where's the Qwints vote though? You're saying things like "We should lynch him," but instead you're still voting me.

[Zilla]

Yes, I would like to get my pseudo of Panzer, I don't believe in his lynch.

and I thought I voted BB. Qwints is a lurker in my eyes that just should take a look at militant...

If he doesn't want that, see my statements about lynching lurkers, esspecially when there is some doubt about their allignment.

You mean when you wanted to lynch SpringLulliby when we had no idea about her alignment?

HUGE FOS: Mykonian

[Zilla]

It's actually L-3 because BB didn't unvote, if the mod rolls like that.

[Zilla]

We're seriously going to hit 50 before the end of day 1.

Is this some kind of record?

[Zilla]

I almost think we don't have time for conditional claiming. If we stand any chance of switching votes at all, Qwints is going to have to claim NOW.

[Zilla]

Gieff, there's a middle path in which if we think Qwints is reasonably town, we could vote for no-lynch, though that may be worse than a vanilla lynch.

At the very least, we aren't risking a power role with Qwints, and I still think he's been very opportunistic in his votes, and hasn't been accountable for his actions. To be honest, this is the first time I've ever been in a game with a claim before lynch (not counting a marathon game, but I feel those are significantly different than long games). I'm still thinking through our options, I'm not sure what our best course of action is.

We're also waiting on a replacement for Militant, and Dour and Ting have yet to seriously weigh in on the subject. It's been quiet for a few days here, but we are really close to deadline. Their input is paramount.

[Zilla]

Congratulations on page 50 on day 1.

Do we have time for a mykonian wagon?

[Zilla]

Perhaps it's a word of caution to whoever is looking to replace Militant.

[Zilla]

Two kills... I'm guessing one was mafia, the other could be either vig or SK.

If it's an SK, I have to wonder if that's Mykonian (again, he was the first to introduce the idea. I've found that people like to mention their own roles.) It could be a vig though.

The scarecrow death MO seems to match serial killer, and Ting's matches a mafia MO.

However, there's this:

The evil presence was determined to ward off any birds that threatened to disturb their fallen comrade qwints, so they had erected a scarecrow all their own.

Which points to Goat being a mafia kill.

[Zilla]

First off, since Panzer's an outted cop, what information do you have for us?

[Zilla]

I'm not cop-immune to my knowledge. I'd like to hear SL's defense before I comment on that case.

I think we can extract that the mafia killed goat and someone else killed Ting from the nightpost, as Goat's body was essentially remarked as being vengeance for Qwints.

[Zilla]

On qwints:

He promised a read on Mykonian and failed to deliver, he promised a rereading of [your] misrepresentations and failed to deliver, and he generally doesn't have much input in the thread.

He replaced MacavityLock who argued to try hunting the SK instead of the mafia, and I find that highly suspect, for reasons we've been over many times before. In fact, he seems to be aware of the problem this causes, reading his third post, and tries to backpedal from that stance, though his second post pretty much hinges on Panzer arguing to lynch mafia over SK. Still, a possible misunderstanding.

Neither of them contributed much.

Points I feel are invalid:

It is also odd that you say mykonian and Panzer are the scummiest, yet you hop on the B_B wagon without presenting any original reasons, probably because it looks like an easy lynch.

Many developments and sparse activity make for the kind of play he's using, town or scum, and if he's town, it's an easy frame job for scum to pull off. When you read the post in the context of the situation, it's far less scummy, aside from his forgetting about Mykonian/Panzer.

In fact, almost all of your case on him is based on his inactivity and playstyle, which would be fixed with more contribution. Apply pressure might get him to post more, so we can actually have a valid opinon of him. Including MacavityLock, that position has contributed a total of 14 real posts (one of Macavity's is V/LA announcement, one is confirm, one of qwints' is an EBWOP, one is introduction, one is a "sorry, will read later.")

Speaking of "sorry, will read later." The last time we actually heard anything of importance from SpringLulliby was here. post 215, page

NINE

.

This is defense of Qwints? He didn't have much at all to go on, and I really did think your case on his views vis-a-vis Mykonian/Panzer and voting Birthday didn't take time into account between his posts.

Also, I'm pretty sure the end of day 1 shows that I was suspicious of Qwints, since I had him at a higher priority than Birthday. It might be interesting to note how difficult it was to get Birthday to switch to Qwints, and I constantly had to point out how he was saying Qwints was scummy but not voting him.

I wouldn't be so hasty to clear BB just because Qwints flipped scum. I'm going to check when Qwints voting BB, whether he actually wanted to lynch him or if he was putting a safe vote in for distancing...

[Zilla]

He was vote 4 out of 7. L-3 is kind of an ambiguous limbo to put your vote in, somewhere between distancing and lynching. He also places the vote during a time quite a ways after anyone else had put the BB vote on. From this approach, I'd say it's more likely he's intending to lynch BB, and intended his vote to direct attention toward BB more, rather than distancing.

[Zilla]

Yeah, obviously only town people wouldn't question Qwints scumminess.

[Zilla]

Vote:Springlullaby

It's about time she gets some votes. She's been escummy all game.

Another generalization? links plz.

[Zilla]

To be more verbose, he didn't have much input on the game. I said this then. That's the whole point, something you're missing. Apparently, scum can't be undecided about someone who has little input, and town would consider him scum for not listening to flawed arguments.

You're again nitpicking over semantics. There was a valid line of reasoning on Qwints, however, I was saying there wasn't enough information for that to be a valid reason for voting him. I also said he needed pressure to contribute more, that there wasn't enough to go on.

In short, it was valid to suspect him, it was invalid to assume he was scum.

[Zilla]

Birthday, why so hesitant to vote Qwints?

[Zilla]

I don't think I missed anything...

Birthday, why so hesitant to vote Qwints?

Irony.

Did you notice qwints jumping on Panzer and B_B's wagons, but not jumping on yours? Did you think it was odd at the time? Do you think it's odd now?

I suspected Panzer and BB at the time, and obviously didn't suspect myself. I found the arguments against me flawed, so it seemed more like he just understood the game the same way I did. Now, yes, it's interesting that he spared me, and I'm guessing he didn't expect me to turn on him later for it.

BB is voting me because scum protected me in game, which contradicts his stance on me earlier where I must have been scum for defending a townie.

[Zilla]

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

From here. He's said this many times.

A more direct contradiction:

Okay, let's see what we have:

Goatrevolts's super long post: I find the general point agrees with the thoughts I have had on Zilla since she started defending me (or about that time). I find it interesting that he believe that if Zilla is scum that I still could be. Personally, this seems flawed as a thought process, but I'm not really sure. (I know I am not scum, and therefore can conclude Zilla is scum without considering my own alignment as being relevant.) Obviously, if Zill is actually town, this is irrelevant and I could still just as easily be scum (if not more so), but if scum, I think that the suspicion on me should be decreased greatly. (By greatly, I mean even halved, which if Goat's numbers make any sense, is about 10% higher than the rest of town anyway.)

from here.

It's strange to think this kind of logic for incriminating me is now being ignored to also incriminate me.

[Zilla]

Contradiction is that he said I must have been scum because I didn't buy goat's case and didn't jump on him, so I must be scum because I was buddying up to a townie. Now when Qwints doesn't buy goat's case and doesn't jump on me, I must be scumbuddies with him.

Basically, when I didn't jump on him, it was scum trying to buddy to town. When Qwints didn't jump on me, it was scum protecting a partner.

[Zilla]

He's using the same logic to say two different things. I didn't buy Goat's case on him, thus I'm scum defending a townie. Qwints didn't buy Goat's case on me, thus he must be scum defending scum. If the first case is valid for him, I don't understand why it isn't valid for me.

Cross referencing from yesterday, he may have been trying to get me lynched today after it didn't work yesterday. I still don't like how long it took him to vote Qwints. I don't like how he was scummy all day one, first by admission, then by tunneling, then by trying to not actually vote Qwints but appear to. I don't like how he's calling me scum on a double-standard.

I think we need to hear from Dour, Sens, Spring, Mykonian, and something of real substance from Panzer.

[Zilla]

GIEFF, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Birthday, you're ignoring the double-standard, either intentionally or inadvertantly, and it's looking intentional at this point.

[Zilla]

16) Posting in twilight is acceptable, for both the lynchee and town members.

ARM of Suspicion: Mykonian, Dour, Sens

.

[Zilla]

From what I've seen of Sens, he has a fetish for quicklynching. It's still completely nuts to abruptly end a day like that. Does anyone want to unvote on the off chance that wasn't hammer?

[Zilla]

Technically, Mykonian didn't include a colon in his vote, so it's possibly not an official vote...

[Zilla]

Zilla, you're either wrong or trying to mislead.

vote: Zilla

And you know this with certainty, eh? I'm just pointing out how BB is using a double standard, that when I don't buy a case, I'm buddying up to town, but Qwints can't be buddying up to town, he must be defending scum.

[Zilla]

Sorry I'm late, guys. Life's been busy.

mykonian is wrong about the slip again, and its odd that Panzer didn't get a result.

Vote: Zilla

, for now. I think this is the third vote.

Also note no reasoning here, just tossing a vote on the heap.

[Zilla]

I forgot Qwints was my buddy on day 1.

[Zilla]

I'm still a little bitter that the only reason I was lynched was that my arguement on BB didn't stick. That's why I hate Sens' style of playing, from either side, in that it makes lynches so arbitrary. It worked awesomely in a marathon game, but in that case, it was because the scum person actively sought being put at L-1 because they thought they wouldn't be lynched. That was the turning point for this game. I was totally not supposed to be lynched day 2, and from then on, there was nothing left to check the power roles.

[Zilla]

That isn't the only reason you were lynched. You were trying to make a contradiction where there was none,

Debatable. It was trying to push a skew that DID exist but was logically flawed, and that's what I was talking about.

and you played very scummily on day one.

You didn't seem to think so at the end of Day 1, and that wasn't why I was lynched.

[Zilla]

That's why I hate Sens' style of playing, from either side, in that it makes lynches so arbitrary.

It works.

It seems to, but that doesn't mean I like it.

[Zilla]

I don't feel like I have any meaningful discussion to contribute, hence "ignoring" it. I didn't mean to be mean, and it didn't look like it had actually gotten out of hand or anything.

[Zilla]

I blame Death Note.