Cultafia: Game over

[Norinel]

You have 10 days, give or take a few hours. Also prodding CKD, who was L/A but should be back by now.

Vote Count

mnowax (1) - Beep! Beep!
vollkan (1) - Yosarian2

Not voting (10): Everybody else

7 to lynch, 4 at deadline.

[curiouskarmadog]

received my prod. Not too much to say at this point, I feel like Mno is probably a recruit at this point, this will be proven if he doesnt vig someone tonight. Today we shouldnt bother hanging recruits and we should attempt to find recruiters....the only people who would be worried about recruits is an opposing faction (another cult)...which makes me wonder why Beep Beep's vote is on Mno.

now at this point, i dont have a clue who the CRs are. I have hunches, but they are not more than that at this point.

[mnowax]

received my prod. Not too much to say at this point, I feel like Mno is probably a recruit at this point, this will be proven if he doesnt vig someone tonight. Today we shouldnt bother hanging recruits and we should attempt to find recruiters....the only people who would be worried about recruits is an opposing faction (another cult)...which makes me wonder why Beep Beep's vote is on Mno.

now at this point, i dont have a clue who the CRs are. I have hunches, but they are not more than that at this point.

X

I told you i attempted to vig last night and i wont be able to tonight. i am under the understanding that i only get attempts to vig and i i can not attempt two nights in a row

[mnowax]

EBWDP:

X

[curiouskarmadog]

well, you got an alibi then dont you?...

refresh my memory (so I dont have to find the post again)..who did yo uclaim to vig last night and why?

[NabakovNabakov]

How does this:

Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes.

Have anything to do with this?

1) You can't see any point to the argument

Regardless of the reality or validity of your suspicions regarding Skruffs, the argument continues to get us nowhere. Your case against him is convoluted, relying on several twists of hearsay buried in a massive post-fest. I would venture that only about half the players in this game have the stamina to figure out exaclty what you're driving at, but I truly doubt that a single one would really go along with it. You're pushing a case just as bum as the one Skruffs started this with. There's no wagon, no lynch in its future, just another layer on the post-labryinth.

[Yosarian2]

To repeat myself,

Volkan: I can appriciate a good debate as well as anyone, trust me; but, um, any thoughts on who might be scum?

In fact,

vote:Volkan

. With a deadline, I'm starting to wonder if he's intentionally drawing out a pointless debate, repeating the same points over and over again, just to stall us out. I wouldn't mind if he was actually voting for Skruffs and/or making a case against Skruffs, but as it just feels like he's trying to look active for the sake of trying to look active but not really doing anything helpful.

I see two points here. 1) You can't see any point to the argument, therefore 2) it is most likely I am scum trying to lead people up a never-ending staircase.

2) is conjecture and unfalsifiable. It's your assumption as to my motive and I can say no more about it.

However, 2) is very much dependent on 1) being true. And I can address 1). Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes. I haven't voted for him simply because I am trying to see if I can understand where he is coming from. Suffice to say, that I do think Skruffs is scummy - primarily from the fact that he strikes out against Armlx's level of content in defence of his own, which expands through the argument we have been having.

Ok, that wasn't coming through in your argument with Skruffs. Could you back up for a minute and explain why, exactally, you think Skruff's actions are scummy?

It feels like the last few weeks of this game have been a back and fourth with:

You: X was a bad case
Skruffs: Well, at least I'm trying to make a case on someone
You: Yes but it was a bad case
Skruffs: But, at least I'm trying to make a case on someone
You: Yes but it was a bad case
Skruffs: But, at least I'm trying to make a case on someone
You: Yes but it was a bad case
...

And so on. That's really where it feels like this is going.

So, yeah. You think Skruffs is scummy? Could you try to explain why you think his actions make him likely scum? Also, with 10 days before deadline, if you think he's scummy and aren't suspicious of anyone else (or haven't voiced any suspicions on anyone else), why aren't you voting him? Do you have any other major suspects?

And Skruffs: I don't know why you seem to always do this; you're basically logically in the wrong here, and you've spent ages trying to defend a position where you're logically in the wrong. What are you trying to prove here? What do you think you have to gain from this endless debate?

[armlx]

Also, with 10 days before deadline, if you think he's scummy and aren't suspicious of anyone else (or haven't voiced any suspicions on anyone else), why aren't you voting him?

This is the question I really want a solid answer to, as his last response seemed kind of lackluster.

[springlullaby]

Hi, sorry, been busy.

First, mnowax, what's up with the big red X?

Second, where does the TSS is an SK talk comes from?

Now, I think Skruff's full fledged 'I'm defending my honor' post is definitively off. Only, why do you guys who have been needling at him extensively haven't voted him?

Also, what struck me at the end of D1, when I realized that I had possibly misinterpreted stuff, were the people 'on my side'. Skruff kinda counts in that category. So does aioqwe, I'd like him to explain this:

The more this continues the more inclined I am to believe armlx/yos. Personally I wouldn't call it mindless puppy following. That's more like people who just pop in to post QFT! or whatever.

beep beep, if you say that armlx is not scum, what do you think of what she's been saying about me/my predecessor?

Vote: skruff

[armlx]

I don't feel Skruffs is being scummy, I think he's just trying to defend his ego at this point.

I am a HE by the way. Assuming that was a DGB related typo?

[vollkan]

How does this:

Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes.

Have anything to do with this?

1) You can't see any point to the argument

Regardless of the reality or validity of your suspicions regarding Skruffs, the argument continues to get us nowhere. Your case against him is convoluted, relying on several twists of hearsay buried in a massive post-fest. I would venture that only about half the players in this game have the stamina to figure out exaclty what you're driving at, but I truly doubt that a single one would really go along with it. You're pushing a case just as bum as the one Skruffs started this with. There's no wagon, no lynch in its future, just another layer on the post-labryinth.

The first quote has everything to do with the second because there was a point to the argument. You've played with me before, NN; you know that I argue a lot in this game. And, for what it's worth, the argument has shown up pretty clearly that Skruffs is being completely recalcitrant and is trying damned hard to defend the undefendable. The argument itself is a source of information for me on skruffs and, I well imagine, for the rest of you on me.

I'm not too sure of what your point is when you say that the case is not going anywhere. I agree that, thus far, the case is far lynch-worthy. I don't see why that fact means that I should desist from engaging in dialogue with Skruffs on this point.

So, yeah. You think Skruffs is scummy? Could you try to explain why you think his actions make him likely scum? Also, with 10 days before deadline, if you think he's scummy and aren't suspicious of anyone else (or haven't voiced any suspicions on anyone else), why aren't you voting him? Do you have any other major suspects?

I find scummy the fact that the only thing he tried to present as a case was a truly feeble point. I also find scummy the fact that he then tried to invert that by turning it into a justification to fire off at Armlx for criticising his case. I also find scummy the fact that he has repeatedly now made a very poor defence of his position, despite remaining adamant.

Do I have other suspects? I always have a sort of mental ranking (ala my numbers), but I need to reread in order to ensure that it is not just delusion of gut.

[Norinel]

Prodding Beep! Beep!, replacing Quinton. unless he shows up in the next day or so.

[Skruffs]

Hi, sorry, been busy.

First, mnowax, what's up with the big red X?

Second, where does the TSS is an SK talk comes from?

Now, I think Skruff's full fledged 'I'm defending my honor' post is definitively off. Only, why do you guys who have been needling at him extensively haven't voted him?

Also, what struck me at the end of D1, when I realized that I had possibly misinterpreted stuff, were the people 'on my side'. Skruff kinda counts in that category. So does aioqwe, I'd like him to explain this:

The more this continues the more inclined I am to believe armlx/yos. Personally I wouldn't call it mindless puppy following. That's more like people who just pop in to post QFT! or whatever.

beep beep, if you say that armlx is not scum, what do you think of what she's been saying about me/my predecessor?

Vote: skruff

Someone else insinuated I Was defending my honor, not me. My post was reflecting on that suggestion and seeing if it held any truth.

WHy the vote, all of a sudden?


Yos:
I will try not to rehash what I've said over and over again; obviously my poisiont in this argument is my own and I'm not going to bend to the will of other people.

Regardless of the reasoning of why I voted Hjtill, I think that some of the reactions I got were more vested in defending him then they should have been. Vollkan and Armlx, to be precise, attacked my case while at the same time,a nd I've pointed this out, offering none of hteir own. Their intentions, to me, seemed clear : They were defending Hjltill and had no obvious (to me) reason to be doing so.

If Hjltill was a cult recruiter, that would explain their actions. If they were all masons together, I do not see why they would out all of themselves to defend another - even if Hjltill was the steadfast mason, sacrificing the entire group to save one doesn't make sense.

Hjltill quickly resigned from the game afterwards, and has not been replaced, I do not think. I do not know if that means anything in regards to his alignment, or not, but if he was a cult recruiter and armlx and vollkan are his recruits, then if I was in his shoes, then it would seem VERY obvious to me what was going on and I would understand him wanting to replace out rather than giving up on a lost cause. He's not a very experienced player so he may nto realize that there are things called 'rebounds'.

I think that regardless of my own feelings of Hjltill, that I have received some recent attention that is probably NOT from his organization (if there is one and I am right), but may be from other players who want to keep attention on those three players after I die. This entire statement is based more on 'a hunch' and emotions and what I see those interactions as causing, but I could be wrong.

Was anyone in this game Scum in "Assasins in the Palace"? Because the situation is reversed here. In this game, there are (possibly) "kings" (cult recruitors) who are guarding themselves with more and more bodyguards. All of the rest of us are 'assassins' (except without the nifty-death-vengeful-stuff) who are trying to find out who the kings are.

Can anyone offer any pointers?

[Skruffs]

Vollkan -
I just noticed you haven't voted, yet, at all this game. Is there a specific reason for that?

[NabakovNabakov]

The first quote has everything to do with the second because there was a point to the argument. You've played with me before, NN; you know that I argue a lot in this game. And, for what it's worth, the argument has shown up pretty clearly that Skruffs is being completely recalcitrant and is trying damned hard to defend the undefendable. The argument itself is a source of information for me on skruffs and, I well imagine, for the rest of you on me.

I'm not too sure of what your point is when you say that the case is not going anywhere. I agree that, thus far, the case is far lynch-worthy. I don't see why that fact means that I should desist from engaging in dialogue with Skruffs on this point.

Sophistry, while fun, becomes less and less useful as the deadline counts down. I look forward to your reworked rankings.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not too sure of what your point is when you say that the case is not going anywhere. I agree that, thus far, the case is far lynch-worthy. I don't see why that fact means that I should desist from engaging in dialogue with Skruffs on this point.

I don't care if you "engange in dialogue" with him or not. But if you think he's scummy, you need to be voting for him. If you're not sure, you need to be voting for someone else while you keep attacking him.

For that matter, EVERYONE needs to start voting. Why are so many people currently voting for no one at all?

I find scummy the fact that the only thing he tried to present as a case was a truly feeble point. I also find scummy the fact that he then tried to invert that by turning it into a justification to fire off at Armlx for criticising his case. I also find scummy the fact that he has repeatedly now made a very poor defence of his position, despite remaining adamant.

Could you explain why you think a scum would be more likely to do any or all of that then a townie would?

Do I have other suspects? I always have a sort of mental ranking (ala my numbers), but I need to reread in order to ensure that it is not just delusion of gut.

Nothing wrong with voting on gut at this point. But voting for no one is foolish.

About the worst possible thing one could possibly do in a cult game would be to do a no-lynch, but we seem to be drifting that way at the moment. Anyone who's not voting right now is suspicious becuase of that, but at the moment, you're at the top of that list, because you're being quite active while not voting, it seems like you're perfectly happy with the dead-end path the town is calmly floating towards here. I'd expect a pro-town player who's paying as much attention to the game and spending as much time on the game as you apparently are right now to be trying to move the town towards some kind of bandwagon, and it dosn't feel like you are.

[armlx]

Currently waiting on Vollkan's next post, but he's still most likely where my vote is going.

[Skruffs]

Why?

[Skruffs]

The reason I ask is because I just explained why I think it's likely he is a cult recruit (Along with you, no less) and that I think he is defending his cult recruitor. What about him has given you the impression that he is more likely a cult recruitor than Hjtlill? I ask you personally because you have been using that as your solo guiding point in whether or not someone is scum.

[armlx]

I have said before I believe with about 90% certainty Hjallti is another, very non-cult leader role.

I find vollkan scummiest ATM because of his whole "Skruffs is scummy, but I'm not voting him yet thing" which is really stray to me. I agree with you he's much more likely to be recruit than recruiter if he is scum, hence the most likely in my last post as I am debating whether trying to shoot in the dark for a recruiter is better then lynching someone I am putting on 1/4 town, 1/2 recruit, 1/4 recruiter or something close.

[Yosarian2]

Yos:
I will try not to rehash what I've said over and over again; obviously my poisiont in this argument is my own and I'm not going to bend to the will of other people.

Regardless of the reasoning of why I voted Hjtill, I think that some of the reactions I got were more vested in defending him then they should have been. Vollkan and Armlx, to be precise, attacked my case while at the same time,a nd I've pointed this out, offering none of hteir own. Their intentions, to me, seemed clear : They were defending Hjltill and had no obvious (to me) reason to be doing so.

The thing is, Skruffs, when someone attacks your argument, you basically have two options. You can either defend your ARGUMENT, continue to argue that it is valid despite their objections, or you can drop or downplay your argument and move on to something else. What you did was to basically question someone else's right to question your argument, and that's not only badly logically flawed, it would be bad stratagy. And then you kept arguing the point endlessly, even though you were, well, pretty much wrong; everyone has the right to question anything said by anything else, or else the game of mafia dosn't really work well. Frankly the whole "argument about arguing about arguments" was so drawn out and pointless it kind of make me forget what your origional argument was in the first place, and I honeslty don't really care anymore either.

I don't really think that's a scum tell in your case, but I don't think the argument is helpful, and you (and the town) would have been better off if you had either kept it on a relevent topic "like "is X scum", or else if you had just dropped it.

[vollkan]

I will try not to rehash what I've said over and over again; obviously my poisiont in this argument is my own and I'm not going to bend to the will of other people.

I

really

cringe at this sort of thing. "But that's what I believe", "That's what I think", "I'm entitled to my opinion". And, in your case, "my position in this argument is my own". I don't know if there is a proper term for it, but it should be called an "appeal to subjectivity" or something along those lines. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, you couch it in personal terms which are irrefutable.

This is not a matter of "bending to the will of other people"; it is simply a matter of you being unable to admit errancy. I'm not going to reiterate my argument against your position, because it's patently clear that you are being obstinate.

They were defending Hjltill and had no obvious (to me) reason to be doing so.

Anything I said, I said because I took issue with what you said. Tell me if that is not a good reason.

Vollkan -
I just noticed you haven't voted, yet, at all this game. Is there a specific reason for that?

I just checked my posts, and you're right. I don't have any reason for this.

I don't care if you "engange in dialogue" with him or not. But if you think he's scummy, you need to be voting for him. If you're not sure, you need to be voting for someone else while you keep attacking him.

I just want to work out where you are coming from here: Why do I "need" to be voting anybody at this point in time?

Could you explain why you think a scum would be more likely to do any or all of that then a townie would?

Well, to begin with, my opinion of skruffs the player is that he is competent and not a VI/newbie. If I am wrong at this point, do let me know. From that,
1) The Hjallti attack - He initially gives no reasons for the vote upon Hjallti. He then only backs this up by picking on what looks to be a "slip". What I find scummy is the way he views this slip as sufficient justification for a vote insofar as he doesn't give any indication as to why that alleged slip somehow outweighs anything else he read (remember, he had multiple claims of suspicions in his reread) and, moreover, he pays no heed to whether or not the slip is actually a slip at all. Maybe you have a different opinion on this, but my impression is that Skruffs would be a tad more nuanced if he were town - and actually give some explanation, either with the initial vote/justification or subsequently, as to why he thinks it to be a scum slip as opposed to just language difficulties.

He dismissed this after Hjallti responded by simply saying: "No, I don' think you mis-wrote it at all; I think you were thinking in the back of your head that he was a vying cult recruiter." This is a very slippery sort of response and, again, an appeal to subjectivity - "I don't think". Does he consider the possibility that Hja might be telling the truth (which might possibly be indicated by the fact that Hjallti is from Belgium)? No.

2) On armlx - When challenged on the above, he simply lashes out with an evasive response. He raises the thing about non-contributors not having the right to criticise others (which, I have submitted already, is rubbish) and also says that armlx seems "relaxed and comfortable" - which is pretty much just mud-slinging-esque insinuation. I find this scummy because I think that somebody who sincerely thought that they had a legitimate argument would defend it (ie. "Hjallti is scummy because...") rather than attempting to wriggle out of it.

3) On the argument - Similar to the above. He's avoiding admitting that he is wrong, despite his position being ridiculous. Wriggling out of it rather than either proving me wrong, or admitting defeat. His concern here seems to be solely self-preservation, rather than doing the best job at scum-hunting.

Could he be town? Yes. Do I think it likely? Progressively less and less so.

[vollkan]

I find vollkan scummiest ATM because of his whole "Skruffs is scummy, but I'm not voting him yet thing" which is really stray to me.

Which is scummy because...?

[armlx]

I find vollkan scummiest ATM because of his whole "Skruffs is scummy, but I'm not voting him yet thing" which is really stray to me.

Which is scummy because...?

Extremely non-commital. It seems to me you are trying to test the waters for a wagon on him before making a decision to vote.

[curiouskarmadog]

I have said before I believe with about 90% certainty Hjallti is another, very non-cult leader role.

why?