Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[ribwich]

And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad.

Well, to me it implies that you already knew the lynch was going to be a waste.

[iamausername]

I might not have been posting a lot, but I was following closely enough to move my vote if I felt there was a need. Since I didn't move my vote, clearly I didn't have a problem with the wagon.

So you were lurking...?

Oh, most definitely.

[ZazieR]

I'd debate with you on this, but it wouldn't be very helpful for the town. Remind me when I need a topic in the Mafia Discussion forum.

We'll do that when both of the games are over.

I read every post, maybe not every detail all the time, but I do try.

As you could guess, there's a reason why I asked this question.

Both Derhammer and Sche are at L-3 from my countl

This was with your first vote

Vote: Der Hammer (L-2)

In between your posts came also a VC.

Then Percy votes, you again and last but not least Gerrendus.
Of those, I really don't like your reaction after the lynch. Especially as you didn't look at the VC, possibly didn't notice Juls and Vi counting and following Percy.

If my memory serves me right, I voted DH, then a page or two later I voted him again. That's what I mean by, "actually, never mind." What I was trying to say in that post was that "whew, I didn't just do something terrible to the town."

It was only one page, but it was the same day in which you unvoted and revoted.
I still don't see why you said 'actually never mind'. What's the point of saying 'I had already voted for DH earlier'? Should this make any difference?
Also I just noticed this:

Gerrendus placed the final.

It gives me the impression that you want all the attention at Gerrendus.

Perhaps I don't find him as suspicious.

Didn't you say that not giving someone their final words before their lynch is anti-town?

If you havn't noticed, there is no specific question there. Tom wonders how the hell I could have forgotten, puts out the point that I had switched my vote only a day ago and that an updated vote count was posted between the 24hr span. I then proceeded to tell him, "I forgot. Everyone forgets sometime," indirectly, in my post.

TM wanted to know how you could forget it. In that quote he gave even two options for you to pick. Not to forget that you could also go for the comical 3rd option. However, you just state that you can't remember everything. But as shown in this post, there have been 3 posts in which players/the mod were warning for the amount of votes. And all 3 of them were one day before your second vote! You even followed a player, so you should have known that there was one vote more. If you had read all of them, it would seem strange that you just forgot them, while a player was almost lynched.

Can I ask what you mean by having a problem? If I'm not mistaken, I tihnk you mean there's something remotely scummy about it, but you can't point it out directly like yo ucan point out oranges. Am I correct?

Nope, you're not correct. For all those wondering, we're talking about al4xz's response to this:

It was not a matter of remembering, it was a matter of taking five seconds to check the voting. You made two mistakes in that process... (1) You thought you had not already voted for Der Hammer and (2) you thought that you helped to hammer Der Hammer.

I do not like your reaction because it makes it seem like you took nothing into consideration until AFTER the fact. You were more than happy to make the move and then think about what you did. When, if you are scum, you do not need to think of your vote.

And to those who question the witch-hunt of Scheherazade, I do not disagree that his play has been erratic. But something about this situation does not sit well with me at the moment.

Which was:

That's bullshit. The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town should always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough

I get the impression that you're saying you can't be scum as you didn't think about your vote, while scum do. If so, I'm having problems with it. If not, what did you mean with it?

I think ZazieR echoes a little of what I have said. I have nothing new to really add right now. If al4xz would have had the voting issue happen over a span of time substantially longer than 24 hours, I would buy the whole "I forgot" spiel.

And Gerrendus, I do not think you are helping yourself either in this situation. You and al4xz are essentially fighting the same battle. My vote only goes to him because having already voted, I would expect him to be more aware of the entire situation than someone just placing a vote. This is not to say I think you both should have been paying attention.

This, except for the bit about me

Rib, where did al4xz said the part you quoted in post 350?

[ribwich]

It's hard to see, because it looks like he forgot to italize it, but it's in 345 right after your comment about the village idiot comment.

"You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this." - You

"To me, a Village Idiot is basically anyone who plays like an utter fool, whether they are town or not. And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad." - Him

[Puta Puta]

It's hard to see, because it looks like he forgot to italize it, but it's in 345 right after your comment about the village idiot comment.

"You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this." - You

"To me, a Village Idiot is basically anyone who plays like an utter fool, whether they are town or not. And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad." - Him

"O conspiracy!
Sham'st thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free?"

[Vi]

I might not have been posting a lot, but I was following closely enough to move my vote if I felt there was a need. Since I didn't move my vote, clearly I didn't have a problem with the wagon.

So you were lurking...?

Oh, most definitely.

...uh... How's it going? The lurking, I mean. ^^;

(How am I supposed to respond to that!?)

-----

"O conspiracy!
Sham'st thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free?"

:janetweiss:

-----

DoomCow: Waiting, etc.

-----

The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town

should

always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough.

I'm not sure I like what you're doing here, between the dealing in generalities to the use of the mistake to paint yourself Town.
(Actually, I'm quite sure I don't like what you're doing there.)

I'd like an answer to that question

[why nobody started by voting for Scheherazade]

as well, though I suspect I know the answer.

?

[post-reread]

The flip-unflip-reflip back and forth at the end of yesterday really bites IMO, especially considering Posts 228 and 271 seem to contradict. I'm still not pleased with the argument temporarily immortalized in ribwich's sig. The Slayer's Gambit and the ensuing griping made up a sizeable part of your activity yesterday, though to all appearances it wouldn't have had any effect on your opinions IYO. And unless I'm not seeing something (it's getting late), you haven't mentioned any suspicions for today either... Where's the scumhunting?

So, I guess all I can do is sit here and twiddle my thumbs and go, "OMGHDUNLYNCHMEIAMTOWN!" when someone tries to vote for me. =.=

I have no idea what this quote means ;>.>

I think my choice of action is clear, at least for now.

Vote: al4xz

(L-3)

'Should look at Jazzmyn vs. Scheherazade next.

[Jazzmyn]

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

@Jazzmyn: You're right, I mistakenly applied the phrase "filing away" to the impression I was getting of your read of Der Hammer, not ribwich.

I was taking issue with the statement that you "have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on [your] view of him." That view was that he was "useless" because of his reaction to Juls and "not suspicious" though his vote was "dubious"?

What I wanted was more of an explanation. If he wasn't suspicious to you, you were still willing to let him get lynched because he was "useless"? You suspected me, so why didn't you fight to get people to vote for the suspicious and useless person rather than just the useless person?

Besides that, you suspected me and all you did to convince others of my scumminess was to incorrectly identify one of my statements as ad hominem after another player already mentioned it and note that you didn't like my attitude?

If we're adding attitude into the mix, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Jazzmyn

for the following reasons:

1) Active lurking in the form of repeating popular views rather than generating insightful content.
2) Her suspect statement regarding Percy in her post 7.
3) Wilful dodging of questions, i.e. trying to ignore an explicit question by arguing that it's an argument, not a question.

On a related note, Jazzmyn, you dropped my concerns about your remark regarding Percy.

The sheer disingenuousness of this post makes me cringe. Seriously, I don't know how you could be more disingenuous if you tried.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Jazz

[Scheherazade]

@Jazzmyn: Sure.

The first four posts are fluff posts, with random voting, etc.

In your first real post, you cast a vote like this:

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade



Regards,
Jazz

You voted not because you thought I was behaving like scum, but because you didn't like my attitude. You admit that you aren't even convinced that my initial post was anything but an innocent error: you're voting because you're bothered.

This makes me think you might be scum because 1) you're more interested in lynching somebody objectionable than somebody scummy and 2) you take a very conservative position, rather than condemning me and staking your reputation on it.

Furthermore, you jumped on a bandwagon at a point where you wouldn't face much scrutiny but might get a townie lynched.

The next time you post is to repeat an accusation made by Caboose against me which was 1) untrue and 2) unrelated by you or Caboose to my scumminess. Caboose merely notes that it "really, really, really pisses" him off.

So not only are you not contributing to scum-hunting and parroting another player's opinion, you seem to favour emotional play over logical play in a second instance. Considering how carefully you try to word your posts, this strikes me as odd. It makes me think that you are aware of the mistake you've made twice.

Another post, promising another post.

Your next post, individual post #7, contains

1) a cryptic statement which you refused to explain when I questioned you about it,

2) parroted sentiments to the effect
--a) that Der Hammer's vanilla claim was suspect,
--b) that ribwich's voting behaviour was potentially scummy,
--c) and that al4xz acted oddly in his exchange with Juls,

3) and the instruction that Der Hammer's vote for me "must be added to what [you] wrote above." When I asked you to add it yourself to your own analysis, you accused me of failing to notice your post.

The first is interesting mostly in your reaction in subsequent posts.

The second is interesting because I think in your "read" you merely scoured the thread for other people's opinions. If you had no original content to add, then a townie would probably ask questions. By repeating other people's ideas, I think you were trying to give the impression that you were contributing without doing so, either in the form of original analysis, ideas or questions.

The third is, again, mostly interesting for your later posts. You could easily have updated your opinion of Der Hammer, but didn't. You just mimicked another player, ZazieR.

Two more fluff posts, notable mostly because you made a non-committal noise after ribwich addressed one of the suspicions you raised in your post. I guess that means you didn't suspect him any more.

Your next post, individual post #10, simply confirms that you're voting based on a scummy-vibe, which compels you to vote for me.

After that, you finally respond to me, having already ignored my first set of questions directed at you.

By "respond," I don't mean "answered." You spent more time repeating your previous positions and trying to avoid answering my questions than it would likely have taken to answer them directly. This leads to a run-around where you continue to attack me for asking you questions while repeating yourself. I think it's deliberate evasion.

When I cast my vote against you, you simply accused me of disingenuous posting. Again, you avoid answering the simple question I've been asking for eleven days. It was a stellar performance, but I think you're acting like a mafia player.

[ZazieR]

Okay, the discussion between Scheza and Jazz needs my attention as well, but I want to hear Jazz first about Scheza's last post.

Back to al4xz. Thanks to Rib, I have found the quote.

To me, a Village Idiot is basically anyone who plays like an utter fool, whether they are town or not. And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad.

This response came from this:

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (

wasting a lynch

now to gain some info is alright,

wasting a lynch

later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

You said 'wasting a lynch' aka you knew that DH wouldn't turn up to be scum. That's my problem with it. That ,with your reason to vote DH the second time, is wrong.

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count #2 of Day 2

al4xz (4) -- iamausername, Tom Mason, ZazieR, Vi
TAX (1) -- ribwich
Scheherazade (1) -- Jazzmyn
Jazzmyn (1) -- Scheherezade

Not Voting (6) -- Puta Puta, al4xz, DoomCow, TAX, Gerrendus, Caboose

With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch!

Still seeking a TAX replacement. Feel free to poke your friends and tell them how much they want to be in this game.

[iamausername]

How's it going? The lurking, I mean. ^^;

Pretty good. Got a nice groove going.

[Puta Puta]

i think i'm the only lurker who actually WANTS people to acknowledge my existence in this game, but that apparently ain't happenin'

*runs and hides in lurkerdom again*

[Tom Mason]

i think i'm the only lurker who actually WANTS people to acknowledge my existence in this game, but that apparently ain't happenin'

*runs and hides in lurkerdom again*

Add some thoughts then. Where do you stand on al4xz?

What other things do you draw from what you read?

- Tom Mason

[ribwich]

i think i'm the only lurker who actually WANTS people to acknowledge my existence in this game, but that apparently ain't happenin'

*runs and hides in lurkerdom again*

I just assumed you hadn't fully caught up yet since there weren't any real posts from you. Why are you trying to lurk?

[al4xz]

Again, apoligies, disappearing just when people asked me questions. I had a lot of schoolwork to complete, and on top of that I'm running a large scale forum game on another forum. In any case, all the projects are gone (I'm still waking up and thinking, 'what do I have to do today...'), so I'll be active from here on out. I hope.

I'd debate with you on this, but it wouldn't be very helpful for the town. Remind me when I need a topic in the Mafia Discussion forum.

We'll do that when both of the games are over.

I read every post, maybe not every detail all the time, but I do try.

As you could guess, there's a reason why I asked this question.

Huh?

Both Derhammer and Sche are at L-3 from my countl

This was with your first vote

Vote: Der Hammer (L-2)

In between your posts came also a VC.

Then Percy votes, you again and last but not least Gerrendus.
Of those, I really don't like your reaction after the lynch. Especially as you didn't look at the VC, possibly didn't notice Juls and Vi counting and following Percy.

I can understand that. It looks a hell lot like distancing, even when I read it.

If my memory serves me right, I voted DH, then a page or two later I voted him again. That's what I mean by, "actually, never mind." What I was trying to say in that post was that "whew, I didn't just do something terrible to the town."

It was only one page, but it was the same day in which you unvoted and revoted.
I still don't see why you said 'actually never mind'. What's the point of saying 'I had already voted for DH earlier'? Should this make any difference?

It saves me from guilt that I had killed him without giving him a trial.

Also I just noticed this:

Gerrendus placed the final.

It gives me the impression that you want all the attention at Gerrendus.

Perhaps I don't find him as suspicious.

Didn't you say that not giving someone their final words before their lynch is anti-town?

Yes, I did, but I believe that he wasn't lying when he said that he had forgotten.

If you havn't noticed, there is no specific question there. Tom wonders how the hell I could have forgotten, puts out the point that I had switched my vote only a day ago and that an updated vote count was posted between the 24hr span. I then proceeded to tell him, "I forgot. Everyone forgets sometime," indirectly, in my post.

TM wanted to know how you could forget it. In that quote he gave even two options for you to pick. Not to forget that you could also go for the comical 3rd option. However, you just state that you can't remember everything. But as shown in this post, there have been 3 posts in which players/the mod were warning for the amount of votes. And all 3 of them were one day before your second vote! You even followed a player, so you should have known that there was one vote more. If you had read all of them, it would seem strange that you just forgot them, while a player was almost lynched.
Forgetting is basically not paying attention. ...Actually, forgetting is not paying attention. Even though I hate those words against me, I admit that that's the truth.
It IS strange. I was still thinking I was voting for Scheh for some reason. I dunno.
Wait, now I remember, I believe I was about to go off for class when I voted for DH. I think that was it...or was that something else?

Can I ask what you mean by having a problem? If I'm not mistaken, I tihnk you mean there's something remotely scummy about it, but you can't point it out directly like yo ucan point out oranges. Am I correct?

Nope, you're not correct. For all those wondering, we're talking about al4xz's response to this:

It was not a matter of remembering, it was a matter of taking five seconds to check the voting. You made two mistakes in that process... (1) You thought you had not already voted for Der Hammer and (2) you thought that you helped to hammer Der Hammer.

I do not like your reaction because it makes it seem like you took nothing into consideration until AFTER the fact. You were more than happy to make the move and then think about what you did. When, if you are scum, you do not need to think of your vote.

And to those who question the witch-hunt of Scheherazade, I do not disagree that his play has been erratic. But something about this situation does not sit well with me at the moment.

Which was:

That's bullshit. The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town should always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough

I get the impression that you're saying you can't be scum as you didn't think about your vote, while scum do. If so, I'm having problems with it. If not, what did you mean with it?

I was merely making stating my opinion on what he said. Albeit in a vulgar way.

I think ZazieR echoes a little of what I have said. I have nothing new to really add right now. If al4xz would have had the voting issue happen over a span of time substantially longer than 24 hours, I would buy the whole "I forgot" spiel.

And Gerrendus, I do not think you are helping yourself either in this situation. You and al4xz are essentially fighting the same battle. My vote only goes to him because having already voted, I would expect him to be more aware of the entire situation than someone just placing a vote. This is not to say I think you both should have been paying attention.

This, except for the bit about me

Rib, where did al4xz said the part you quoted in post 350?

I might not have been posting a lot, but I was following closely enough to move my vote if I felt there was a need. Since I didn't move my vote, clearly I didn't have a problem with the wagon.

So you were lurking...?

Oh, most definitely.

...uh... How's it going? The lurking, I mean. ^^;

(How am I supposed to respond to that!?)

*chuckles*

-----

"O conspiracy!
Sham'st thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free?"

:janetweiss:

The heck? o.O

-----

DoomCow: Waiting, etc.

-----

The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town

should

always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough.

I'm not sure I like what you're doing here, between the dealing in generalities to the use of the mistake to paint yourself Town.
(Actually, I'm quite sure I don't like what you're doing there.)

Understandable, since it looks like a clear attempt to say that "oh, I'm not scum because scum..." I would be suspicious of YOU if you didn't find that scummy.

I'd like an answer to that question

[why nobody started by voting for Scheherazade]

as well, though I suspect I know the answer.

?

[post-reread]

The flip-unflip-reflip back and forth at the end of yesterday really bites IMO, especially considering Posts 228 and 271 seem to contradict. I'm still not pleased with the argument temporarily immortalized in ribwich's sig. The Slayer's Gambit and the ensuing griping made up a sizeable part of your activity yesterday, though to all appearances it wouldn't have had any effect on your opinions IYO. And unless I'm not seeing something (it's getting late), you haven't mentioned any suspicions for today either... Where's the scumhunting?

So, I guess all I can do is sit here and twiddle my thumbs and go, "OMGHDUNLYNCHMEIAMTOWN!" when someone tries to vote for me. =.=

I have no idea what this quote means ;>.>
It's merely me spazzing because I have to sit around with a vote on me. Actually, it's just a way to say, "oh well, I accept the fact that you are voting for me because you have no one else to vote for and presssure."

I think my choice of action is clear, at least for now.

Vote: al4xz

(L-3)

'Should look at Jazzmyn vs. Scheherazade next.

Okay, the discussion between Scheza and Jazz needs my attention as well, but I want to hear Jazz first about Scheza's last post.

Back to al4xz. Thanks to Rib, I have found the quote.

To me, a Village Idiot is basically anyone who plays like an utter fool, whether they are town or not. And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad.

This response came from this:

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (

wasting a lynch

now to gain some info is alright,

wasting a lynch

later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

You said 'wasting a lynch' aka you knew that DH wouldn't turn up to be scum. That's my problem with it. That ,with your reason to vote DH the second time, is wrong.

I can't tell you how, but I believe in some way in the english language that CAN mean 'if we waste a lynch now for information it's alright, ..." However, I suggest we take a quick vote on tihs right now. Perhaps your english grammar is better than mine. Take a vote everyone - who thinks this can mean both or can it only mean that I already knew the DH hammer was a waste?[/i]

[ribwich]

I can't tell you how, but I believe in some way in the english language that CAN mean 'if we waste a lynch now for information it's alright, ..." However, I suggest we take a quick vote on tihs right now. Perhaps your english grammar is better than mine. Take a vote everyone - who thinks this can mean both or can it only mean that I already knew the DH hammer was a waste?

It COULD mean that, which is why I didn't send a vote towards you right away. The question is DID it mean that, which is something we'll probably never know for sure. This is one of those times where we're at a disadvantage by playing this online instead of in person. Had I actually seen you say that, your body language would have given your intentions away.

It's not solid enough evidence for me, but it does give off the impression that it could have been a scum slip up. Right now though, it's not enough for me to vote for you. All it does is make me more suspicious of you.

[ribwich]

Understandable, since it looks like a clear attempt to say that "oh, I'm not scum because scum..." I would be suspicious of YOU if you didn't find that scummy.

Wait...so why did you say it?

[DoomCow]

Finally, things seem to be slowing down for a bit, and am willing to state that I'll start rereading this game tomorrow, whatever happens. I'll make it at least cover all of day 1, and hopefully the entire game. But at the least I'll be posting sometime tomorrow about my findings of day 1.

[Jazzmyn]

'Should look at Jazzmyn vs. Scheherazade next.

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

As to his allegations that I have contributed nothing to the game, well, what can I say? I have tried to keep up as best I can and I have offered my opinions and answers to questions. Real life has interfered with my ability to post as often as I would like, but that happens to all of us sometimes, and real life has to take priority over the game, unfortunately. I am up to date now, with the exception that I have to re-read the posts about al4xz as I have not been able to analyze those as closely as I need to in order to comment on them.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it. I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

His attempt to build a case against me on such a dishonest foundation and manufactured allegations is disingenuous to the extreme. I view this as scummy behaviour on his part.

Regards,
Jazz

[al4xz]

Understandable, since it looks like a clear attempt to say that "oh, I'm not scum because scum..." I would be suspicious of YOU if you didn't find that scummy.

Wait...so why did you say it?

Because I'm proving my point to the other guy, that the scum think more about where they place their vote than the town. Usually that's the case.

Damnit, it's happening again. I get so bored of reading arguments that Scheh and his opponent make that I skim through it. =.= I'll have to do a thorough analysis of the arguments..

[Scheherazade]

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

This is clear misrepresentation. Not only does it ignore the real, cited reasons for my vote, it's fabricated weak reasons of its own in order to discredit my vote. It is scummy behaviour.

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

Incorrect. My point is that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious but was set on my lynch, but didn't lift a finger to stop Der Hammer's lynch. If she didn't find him scummy, then it's reasonable to assume that she didn't find the arguments against him correct. If she didn't find them correct, why was she unconcerned with pointing out the flaws in them?

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

Alignment claim, not role-claim. That I'd argue from the basis that I'm town aligned is all but a given in this game.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it. I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

The cryptic statement pertained to Percy. I've made that very clear. She has not answered it in the least. First she accused me of burning a strawman when I asked her a question. Then she ignored it completely. The statement had nothing to do with Der Hammer.

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

Agreement without advancement is useless. It could be worse than useless if it's abused by the mafia to manipulate the town (the peer pressure effect, or perhaps mob mentality).

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

I made clear that the "scouring" remark was opinion. It's one of the reasons why I chose to highlight the facts and give my interpretation separately.

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

This appears to be the second of only two instances in this post where she addresses my accusation directly.

@Jazzmyn:
Let me be more clear:
Your individual post #7 states that you don't find Der Hammer particularly suspicious, but notes odd behaviour. As an after thought, you add Der Hammer's vote, but reserve analysis for a later post.
Your post #11 gives an opinion on his actions, but not on him.
Your post #12 is an attempt to attack me for asking you your opinion on Der Hammer.
Your post #16 is repetition and the declaration that you don't understand my confusion.
None of your other posts
So I say you didn't "update" your

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

You never answered any questions about your Percy remark.
You never explained exactly what your opinion of Der Hammer was as a player.

The Percy remark can be traced like this:
Post #7: You make it.
Post #11: You accuse me of making a strawman because I asked you a question.
Post #12: You repeat that I'm creating a strawman by asking you a question.

You never address it again, though I mention it in two subsequent posts directed at you.

[Tom Mason]

Both Jazz and Sche need to be more concise...

You both give me a headache. All the words end up blurring.

[ribwich]

Damnit, it's happening again. I get so bored of reading arguments that Scheh and his opponent make that I skim through it. =.= I'll have to do a thorough analysis of the arguments..

Both Jazz and Sche need to be more concise...

You both give me a headache. All the words end up blurring.

QFT. Way too late for me to read all of that. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

[OhGodMyLife]

Prodding Caboose and Gerrendus.

Still looking for a TAX replacement.

[OhGodMyLife]

Percy replaces TAX. Thanks Percy!