Open 97 - Lovers Mafia (Over in 3 days!) before 703

[JDodge]

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

I'm seeing a pattern of a question not being answered.

I'm seeing a pattern of me answering Sens's question, him making it come back to same question again, and you hopping in to defend your scumbuddy because mean ol' JD is bullying him again like he always bullies people

[JDodge]

YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG

Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.

This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.

My, your little psyche is full of cognitive biases, isn't it?

Ad hominem, I can't tell if that's a step up or a step down from the norm.

It's not slander nor libel if it's true.

[Lord Gurgi]

Batt disappeared part way through Guardian's post-mortem, I smell scumlurk. Adel should also come back, but the circumstances (appear) to be different.

[JDodge]

Batt disappeared part way through Guardian's post-mortem, I smell scumlurk. Adel should also come back, but the circumstances (appear) to be different.

Because nobody in this game has a life.

[SensFan]

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

Never said that. Said that you shouldn't hold back on acting on your opinion for fear of being shunned by the majority.

I feel like you're playing word games here. You agree that my opinion shouldn't be worth more than the majority, but I'm scummy for waiting for me to make a majority of people happy with a hammer to hammer?

[Lord Gurgi]

I'm seeing a pattern of me answering Sens's question, him making it come back to same question again, and you hopping in to defend your scumbuddy because mean ol' JD is bullying him again like he always bullies people

No. That last one was the closest to a real answer, before you didn't even include the term majority, or similar words. You were answering the question you wanted to answer, not what he asked.

[Lord Gurgi]

Batt disappeared part way through Guardian's post-mortem, I smell scumlurk. Adel should also come back, but the circumstances (appear) to be different.

Because nobody in this game has a life.

Batt disappeared at the same time that Guardian was hammered, that stretches credulity.

[JDodge]

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

Never said that. Said that you shouldn't hold back on acting on your opinion for fear of being shunned by the majority.

I feel like you're playing word games here. You agree that my opinion shouldn't be worth more than the majority, but I'm scummy for waiting for me to make a majority of people happy with a hammer to hammer?

Read it again. I'm too tired to explain this for the eighth time tonight (IIRC, I lost count at around #5).

[Lord Gurgi]

Please kill the quote pyramid.

[Lord Gurgi]

In other news: Hello fellow Gimboxm's.

[Guardian]

sens is still scum.

[SensFan]

Can you give me any arguments I have refuted, or at least point me to arguments I haven't, in your mind, refuted well enough?

[Battousai]

Damn laptop, erased my whole post right when I got done with the top half....

LG:

Why am I lurkerscum for posting once at the beginning of twilight and stop posting, IIRC, for 2 hours at the time of the comment? Why is Adel not lurkerscum for not posting at all?

Sens is the most likely lynch target today, yet you defend him. Why would you defend Sen by attacking JDodge's reasoning? Is it because you are trying to protect your scumbuddy?

Sens:

You hammer Guardian, paraphrasing here, because at least one other townsperson was on the wagon and 3 people were calling for his lynch (who were already on the wagon). You didn't want your voice to be more important than the majority. (You also thought he was scummy for his MOS post). I see it as you finding an easy lynch, and relying on the scum numbers and the WIFOM to avoid a lynch.

[JDodge]

Can you give me any arguments I have refuted, or at least point me to arguments I haven't, in your mind, refuted well enough?

The problem isn't that you're refuting arguments, nor that you're not refuting arguments well enough; the issue is that you're outright

ignoring the point

. The point is that you waited until you could spread out the accountability, and then defined your suspicion after-the-fact; you were attempting to make it look like you were just following the town's will when you were following your own.

I would have had no problem if you had just said "I thought he was scum, hence I hammered." I have a problem when you say "I hammered, I thought he was scum but I wanted to make sure at least town person agreed with me."

See my point there?

[SensFan]

Can you give me any arguments I have refuted, or at least point me to arguments I haven't, in your mind, refuted well enough?

The problem isn't that you're refuting arguments, nor that you're not refuting arguments well enough; the issue is that you're outright

ignoring the point

. The point is that you waited until you could spread out the accountability, and then defined your suspicion after-the-fact; you were attempting to make it look like you were just following the town's will when you were following your own.

I would have had no problem if you had just said "I thought he was scum, hence I hammered." I have a problem when you say "I hammered, I thought he was scum but I wanted to make sure at least town person agreed with me."

See my point there?

Sure. I disagree with the point, but I see it.

I don't know how I can better state that

I will never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town agreeing with the hammer. To do so is, in my opinion, saying my opinion is worth more than that of the majority.

[JDodge]

Can you give me any arguments I have refuted, or at least point me to arguments I haven't, in your mind, refuted well enough?

The problem isn't that you're refuting arguments, nor that you're not refuting arguments well enough; the issue is that you're outright

ignoring the point

. The point is that you waited until you could spread out the accountability, and then defined your suspicion after-the-fact; you were attempting to make it look like you were just following the town's will when you were following your own.

I would have had no problem if you had just said "I thought he was scum, hence I hammered." I have a problem when you say "I hammered, I thought he was scum but I wanted to make sure at least town person agreed with me."

See my point there?

Sure. I disagree with the point, but I see it.

I don't know how I can better state that

I will never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town agreeing with the hammer. To do so is, in my opinion, saying my opinion is worth more than that of the majority.

I don't know how I can better state that

in that case, if you by some obscene stretch of the imagination you are town, you are

strongly

advised to grow a pair.

[SensFan]

I don't know how I can better state that I will

never

hammer anyone without 50% of the Town agreeing with the hammer. To do so is, in my opinion, saying my opinion is worth more than that of the majority.

I don't know how I can better state that in that case,

if you by some obscene stretch of the imagination you are town

, you are

strongly

advised to grow a pair.

Emphasises changed.

Are you implying I am never Town?

[JDodge]

I don't know how I can better state that I will

never

hammer anyone without 50% of the Town agreeing with the hammer. To do so is, in my opinion, saying my opinion is worth more than that of the majority.

I don't know how I can better state that in that case,

if you by some obscene stretch of the imagination you are town

, you are

strongly

advised to grow a pair.

Emphasises changed.

Are you implying I am never Town?

*headdesk*

In this game.

[SensFan]

Right. But doesn't the fact that I do that regardless of my alignment in general mean that it has nothing to do with my alignment in this game?

[JDodge]

Right. But doesn't the fact that I do that regardless of my alignment in general mean that it has nothing to do with my alignment in this game?

Then give examples of this behaviour in the past if you think it will clear you. I am not here to hold your hand and guide you through something that you should know by now.

[SensFan]

Right. But doesn't the fact that I do that regardless of my alignment in general mean that it has nothing to do with my alignment in this game?

Then give examples of this behaviour in the past if you think it will clear you. I am not here to hold your hand and guide you through something that you should know by now.

I am not expecting you to hold my hand, and I don't think the condescending attitude was necessary, either. I am just saying that I don't see why I am being called scummy for not wanting to take advantage of a situation and hammer without a majority.

[JDodge]

Right. But doesn't the fact that I do that regardless of my alignment in general mean that it has nothing to do with my alignment in this game?

Then give examples of this behaviour in the past if you think it will clear you. I am not here to hold your hand and guide you through something that you should know by now.

I am not expecting you to hold my hand, and I don't think the condescending attitude was necessary, either. I am just saying that I don't see why I am being called scummy for not wanting to take advantage of a situation and hammer without a majority.

Your argument is that it is not scummy because you always do it. I ask for examples, and you go off on a tangent attacking the tone of my post instead of (like your buddy Flimsy seems to only be able to contribute by saying) answering the question.

[Adel]

I had a life yesterday, and missed the madness.

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

So all three people voting for Guardian called for a hammer, and you assumed that the one other person besides yourself who wasn't voting for Guardian was obviously scum with Guardian? Did it occur to you that random votes don't count as legitimate suspicion?

You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.

Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?

More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?

I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer once

you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you.

.

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

you aren't new to mafia. How often do 75% of townies randomly vote for the same person by page 2? (hint: never)

Scum Fight!

y don't juz lynch Guardian now, plz?

when posted on page 1 most certainly isn't the same as calling for a hammer. I think it is very interesting that you consider it to be the same as calling for a hammer.

How many times can we mislynch before the town loses?

Your hammer is scummy as hell. I was really hoping that due to an intentional formatting error your hammer wouldn't count (a tactic I've used more than a couple of times) but you even erred on the side of caution by unvoting before you cast the hammer.

[Adel]

Right. But doesn't the fact that I do that regardless of my alignment in general mean that it has nothing to do with my alignment in this game?

Then give examples of this behaviour in the past if you think it will clear you. I am not here to hold your hand and guide you through something that you should know by now.

I am not expecting you to hold my hand, and I don't think the condescending attitude was necessary, either. I am just saying that I don't see why I am being called scummy for not wanting to take advantage of a situation and hammer without a majority.

your hammer is scummy exactly because you took advantage of a situation.

I guess you just aren't used to this level of play. Your transparent attempt to evade being held responsible for a hammer isn't going to work. A hammer by a genuine townie on page 2 would have some significant reason behind it, other than "the random bullshit of the random voting stage left him at lynch -1".

I'm certainly not going to allow an unjustified hammer on page 2 to fly in this or in any other game I ever play.

[JDodge]

2 mislynches = 2 town, 2 scum alive = loss.