Mini #553: Over!

[Guardian]

Guardian: Do you think there's some reason why your claim should be super believable? Because I don't see how out skepticism is surprising.

No, there isn't.

Skepticism is fine -- note how I singled out ting=) and not you, or Seth, both who appear to be leaning the wrong way. You two, unlike ting =), appear to be actually trying to figure things out though. ting =)'s mind has made up, and he's agreeing that that's true, pretty much(!).

I think my play has made sense as pro-town, as has Imats, and I've explained why.

I've also explained why destructor's play makes sense as scum -- lurking, and ties to/stance on coolbot.

You need to look at the play of both players and (hopefully) make the right choice. By no means should that choice be obvious because of my claim.

[ting =)]

no u

I'm going to drop that line of thought. There's no point.

How was I supposed to reply to a "nah you're scum" post with anything other than "nah I'm not"? There was no substance to respond to.

Then don't reply to his 'nah'. Make a case on him based on something else. Or defend yourself based on something else.

Uh, that really, really doesn't cut it.

Kinda funny. Given that, you know, you and destructor have both done the same thing.

And I replied to that reply. Your faked even-mindedness is what is suspicious. If you want me to explain further, tell me what's unclear.

Yes, and I replied to your reply to my reply. :sigh: I sense another circular argument in the works were we'll both eventually decide to just ignore each other.

I've been clear since yesterday that I'm suspicious of you. I've also been clear that I was going to put a ceasefire on my case on you because I symphatized with the feeling of having someone go on relentlessly about you.

I never said that my suspicions were gone. Nor did I say that was not suspicious of destructor.

Skepticism is fine -- note how I singled out ting=) and not you, or Seth, both who appear to be leaning the wrong way. You two, unlike ting =), appear to be actually trying to figure things out though.

ting =)'s mind has made up, and he's agreeing that that's true, pretty much(!).

/quote]
Again, how is this not omgus? I'm inclined to believe destructor over you, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to change my mind. I've been asking you for the last couple of posts now to post something of substance to convince me. But you just keep repeating yourself.

Bold is a gross over exageration. I'm more inclined to believe him. That doesn't mean my mind is made up.

You need to look at the play of both players and (hopefully) make the right choice. By no means should that choice be obvious because of my claim.

ARRRRGGGH. Your whole case on me is that I believe destructor more than I believe you, and that I'm suspicious of you. Seriously?

You're accusing me of close mindedness, even while I've been trying to get you to see things for forever now.

[Matt_S]

Blah blah, no access til Sunday, blah blah posting this in all my games.

[Guardian]

I am now henceforth indicating my desire to see you respond to destructor.

Here you ask me to respond to his long post.

I don't think it's fair for you to judge on your own what will, or will not be useful for everyone. You're dismissing his case, and pretty much just holding on to your claim that you saw him nk. You should know what it looks like from everyone else's perspective.

Here you say I am unfairly ignoring his case and that I'd better respond to it.

How was I supposed to reply to a "nah you're scum" post with anything other than "nah I'm not"? There was no substance to respond to.

Then don't reply to his 'nah'. Make a case on him based on something else. Or defend yourself based on something else.

Here you say that his case was in fact bullshit and not worth responding to, and that I in fact should not have responded to it.

Make up your mind, scum.

destructor is surely scum, and if ting =) isn't his buddy, I'll be greatly surprised.

[ting =)]

Nice nitpicking. How is what you're doing any better than your tunneling charge on me?

The first two are correct.

This is not.

Here you say that

his case was in fact bullshit

and not worth responding to, and that I in fact should not have responded to it.

Make up your mind, scum.

destructor is surely scum, and if ting =) isn't his buddy, I'll be greatly surprised.

I said it's a 'nah' case, which to me falls under appeal to emotion. It's a

bad

case, but still one you should have replied to. Not a bullshit case.

My point was that you should have replied better. That's very clear in context. You dismissed his case as nothing and said that it wasn't worth replying to. I expected better from your reply than an echo of his.

---

You're just grasping at straws now.

Also, while early on we both thought that the most likely possibility was only 1 scum left, you've suddenly concluded that we now have two scum. And your case on the second, is again, really just an extended omgus.

[ting =)]

ebwop:

I said it's a 'nah' case, which to me falls under appeal to emotion. It's a

bad

case, but still one you should have replied to. Not a bullshit case.

This is in reply to the bit in Guardian's post which I italicized.

[destructor]

I don't think my case was a 'nah' one. I

did

say that I know he's lying because I didn't target anyone, but I also pointed out how his claim is inconsistent with what we've seen and what massive claimed. That part has nothing to do with me and anyone else can see it as much as I.

[Talitha]

About 48 hours before I'll start expecting the game to move forward. Hopefully everyone will be present and accounted for. Thanks for your patience everyone.

[Guardian]

I think we need seth bab and matt_s... e.g. the likely other townies... back before the game moves forward

[destructor]

Seth, do you have anything to add at this point?

[BridgesAndBaloons]

You guys are too much!
You waited for me? Yayayayaya!

I'm back from film camp and it was a complete blast. I learned ridiculous amounts of stuff!

Okay, now I'm back. I'm in a tricky situation where all three of my games are at (imo) important moments. This is the most important game since we could be at LYLO, but it's also the slowest paced game.

I owe you guys time like I promised, but I may not be able to make my massive posts for a couple of days.
Anyway, I skimmed the last couple of pages. Is there anything in particular I need to respond to?

Right now, I believe that this lynch is really really important for the town. I think we need all the information possible. I forget who said it, but someone suggested a mass-claim (was it Matt S?). I agree with this. I also would like a claim from destructor

[Sethaniel]

I'm on record as being in favor of some claiming.

[ting =)]

okay des, bab is back.

[destructor]

Unnightkillable townie.
My rolename was Frodo, flavour being that my mithril shirt made me unnightkillable.

I have no abilities, so couldn't have been tracked to Empking, i.e., Guardian is scum.

[Talitha]

I believe all are here. Game on!

destructor (1)

- Guardian

Guardian (1)

- destructor

Not voting (4): BridgesandBaloons, Matt_S, Sethaniel, ting =)

4 votes to lynch.

[ting =)]

Hm.

I wasn't expecting that.

[Matt_S]

Empking targeting destructor could explain the lack of a vig kill. I'm ready to push for a Guardian lynch. I made the mistake of backing down from Guardian yesterday to try and get a better read, but my mind hasn't changed. Now, we can mass claim or something, or we can just get straight to lynching someone. Imat was plenty scummy to be lynched, Guardian has reminded me of his scum side, and his claim sounds too unplausible. Notethat even if Guardian is scum, this whole thing could be a bussing attempt. However, we'll get to that if it comes down to it.

[ting =)]

Notethat even if Guardian is scum, this whole thing could be a bussing attempt.

Yes, that's exactly why I wanted to des to claim.

I thought of two things that he might claim. If he'd claimed vanilla, I'd have voted him, despite what I said earlier. I was expecting him to claim survivor, which I would have brought.

I'm still thinking about this claim. It's... convenient.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

I was fully prepared to build a case about how destructor's claim was bs, but looking back at his discussion of role-claim, it all fits.

The problem is, the reason I was reluctant to vote guardian because I felt that his role-claim kind of fit also.

Right now, I'm feeling like destructor's claim fits better than Guardian, and paired with my previous suspicions of Guardian, I am thinking Guardian is scum.


Guardian: please explain how your role-claim fits with your predecessor's actions.

Destructor: explain how your role-claim fits with your actions.

[Guardian]

Guardian: please explain how your role-claim fits with your predecessor's actions.

Destructor: explain how your role-claim fits with your actions.

I sense an inequity in the burden of proof for these two demands...

Yeah it comes from the facts that:

First, I have to defend someone else's actions, and destructor has to only defend his own.

And second, Imat was pretty active until he needed to be replaced, while destructor has been trying to lurk towards a victory.



I'll look through and see if there is anything specific that makes Imat's play fit with his role but... I've already defended him in general. His actions make sense. destructor, on the other hand, by dint of lurking, hasn't really come into scrutiny much all game. I'd very much like to see him defend his actions.

As for the notion that I am busing destructor... I welcome it. If you think that could be the case, by all means let's lynch destructor, and I'll deal with explaining how I wasn't busing him tomorrow, should I survive the night. Right now it seems that people are skeptical that I am town and are skeptical that he is scum. Both are true, and I bet it would be easier to convince you of one if the other is out of the way. Ergo, if we lynch destructor, once he shows up scum I think you'll have an easier time seeing that I'm town.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Guardian, you brilliantly

defend[ed] someone else's actions

earlier in the game. Why are you so resistant now?

[Guardian]

Guardian, you brilliantly

defend[ed] someone else's actions

earlier in the game. Why are you so resistant now?

BAB, and everyone, I am getting pretty frustrated with this crap. If you're going to think I'm suspicious, tell me why and let me explain it, but this sort of question is driving me nuts.

Where the heck do you all get off saying I am "so resistant" to do X, and Y, and Z, and that that is somehow suspicious!? First it was to defend Imat, then to respond to destructor, and now this.

I mean really, what the heck?

I am "resistant" because I don't think there will be much there that I haven't already covered. I'm managing expectations.

Good god, my realizing that I've already done most of what I can do to explain and defend Imat isn't suspicious, it is me being pragmatic and realistic.

[Guardian]

I thought of two things that he might claim. If he'd claimed vanilla, I'd have voted him, despite what I said earlier. I was expecting him to claim survivor, which I would have brought.

For the record, this 'gambit' makes sense and possibly would have been a pro-town thing to do.

I still think ting =) is des's partner, despite this, but it removes suspicious slightly.

[Guardian]

I was fully prepared to build a case about how destructor's claim was bs, but looking back at his discussion of role-claim, it all fits.

Explain?

unNK able townie?

Does that really make any more sense than tracker, especially considering that neither the SK nor godfather had such immunity?

ps: I'll let destructor explain how his role fits in with his actions before I explain how he's scum, if that suits everyone.

I believe I can do better job explaining in new ways how destructor's actions DON'T fit with him being town, than how Imat's DO.

[destructor]

Destructor: explain how your role-claim fits with your actions.

As in showing you unnightkillable townie-tells or something? Do they even exist?

Well, normally I would have been as helpful and obviously pro-town as possible, but I couldn't get into this game for any extended period of time. I did start day 2 with a better resolve, which is why I started pushing massive so hard. I thought he was scum. But again, I tailed off.

Guardian's equating my lack of interest with lurking. The times I have been interested (like now), I think I've been active and involved.

So far as the rest of my behaviour, I opposed claiming today because now the town's got a boat load of WIFOM to deal with and if I hadn't claimed and we'd lynched Guardian, I thought I could have been a likely nightkill, which failing, would have screwed scum over pretty badly and helped confirm me. I was hoping someone might have picked up on this when I said claiming would probably help scum more than town.

And Bab, you've still got some questions

I

asked that you have to answer.