Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mykonian]

It could help if you reposted your case, with what you think of what happened last, and what my defenses of it were, maybe I can talk it out of your head day 1, otherwise, I'm sure I can day two. At least we agree on the fact that we absolutely don't need a deadline now. Town is just talking in front of themselves. Orto and Spring see only vollkan, you want only me, I'm mostly busy with mrfixij, and Spyrex is on don. don has weakened his stance, so I don't know what he is thinking now, and the rest I even don't know who they want to lynch. Maybe it could be a good idea to get some sort of consensus here...

And mrfix, I know you are online now, would you care to play? I'm not forgetting you while cases on vollkan and don make the play. Please don't hope I will.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

don_johnson - 3 (mykonian, Spyrex, orangepenguin)

orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 1 (Ectomancer)
springlullaby - 1 (vollkan)
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 3 (mrfixij, ortolan, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (TDC, don_johnson)

Vollkan

and

don_johnson

are at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

--------

Mod: can we have a votecount, and a deadline?

Not enough votes for vollkan atm

A deadline may be eminent due to the "busyness" of the holidays, but right now I think the activity and progression of this game is doing okay. However, I am considering one.

[mrfixij]

It could help if you reposted your case, with what you think of what happened last, and what my defenses of it were, maybe I can talk it out of your head day 1, otherwise, I'm sure I can day two. At least we agree on the fact that we absolutely don't need a deadline now. Town is just talking in front of themselves. Orto and Spring see only vollkan, you want only me, I'm mostly busy with mrfixij, and Spyrex is on don. don has weakened his stance, so I don't know what he is thinking now, and the rest I even don't know who they want to lynch. Maybe it could be a good idea to get some sort of consensus here...

And mrfix, I know you are online now, would you care to play? I'm not forgetting you while cases on vollkan and don make the play. Please don't hope I will.

I haven't been posting because this is ridiculous. We're basing discussion with Don on information that is less complete than what town already has. Last I checked, Don hasn't even read through the entire game and is trying to answer questions and throw suspicion. That's not scummy or town, that's just stupid. While it is nice to have a new perspective, I'd rather the perspective be complete. I don't want to get caught up in a debacle of lynching someone based on less complete information than is available at the moment.

I think Spyre is premature in questioning Don. Or at least Don is premature in answering Spyre. Spyre's getting butthurt at being near the top of Don's scumlist, which may be a mild scumtell. Meanwhile, people are criticizing Orto's play, which may be bad, but that's for the post-game report, not a critical time when we have a new guy replacing in.

Yes, Orto and Orange were playing badly. No, we shouldn't lynch them for that because they're all but confirmed town. So discussing their play is sidetracking, and popular sidetracking to boot.

This last page and a half has yielded no information except Don's lack of information and the zealousness to discuss bad play of confirmed town.

[SpyreX]

@Ecto -

I thought I replied before but apparently I didn't. My largest beef with the Mykonian case is that there is a lot of ties to SL (who I find scummier) - if SL is the lynch I would be much more in favor of exploring that tomorrow.

@Fix

Butthurt? Really? Sigh.

[Ectomancer]

@Mykonian and Spyrex - My emphasis on the Mykonian case was to illustrate the tunnel vision that Ortolan is having. I'd like him to take a crack at analyzing it rather than getting pissed that he can't move the Vollkan wagon.

Meanwhile, people are criticizing Orto's play, which may be bad, but that's for the post-game report, not a critical time when we have a new guy replacing in.

Yes, Orto and Orange were playing badly. No, we shouldn't lynch them for that because they're all but confirmed town. So discussing their play is sidetracking, and popular sidetracking to boot.

This last page and a half has yielded no information except Don's lack of information and the zealousness to discuss bad play of confirmed town.

Completely disagree. Ortolan is basing his vote on Vollkan at least partly on Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan. Ortolan says that this means that Vollkan was willing to lynch someone who is town, therefore Vollkan is scum.
That means that Ortolan is basing his judgement upon the quality of his own play. It is more than pertinent to this discussion to point out that Ortolan's play was hardly pro-town and therefore would have attracted a lynch from both town and scum as is evidenced to

me

by the fact that I am town.
That makes Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan a null tell, knocking out a major leg of his case.
Once Ortolan accepts the fact that his play was no stellar performance and stops trying to build cases on that premise, we can drop the topic.

This is an attack on a case, not ad hominem. It is an attack on the logic and the evidence. If it comes off as me protecting Vollkan so be it (though if anyone should be lynched for protecting Vollkan it would be Spyrex)

P.S. - Quit asking for deadlines. Next one who does gets my vote. Don't care if there is no other shred of evidence of being scum.

[ortolan]

Ortolan is basing his vote on Vollkan at least partly on Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan.

No I didn't. The arguments I presented for vollkan being scum were entirely independent of this (for example, they concerned the opportunistic way he argued for his votes, including on me- not the mere fact he voted for me).

Ortolan says that this means that Vollkan was willing to lynch someone who is town, therefore Vollkan is scum.

Nice straw man. Did vollkan give you a primer in his style of argumentation in the pre-game?

It is more than pertinent to this discussion to point out that Ortolan's play was hardly pro-town and therefore would have attracted a lynch from both town and scum as is evidenced to

me

by the fact that I am town.

You can't use this as an argument- not sensibly at least. One of the premises is you being town. This is not known by any means.

That makes Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan a null tell, knocking out a major leg of his case.

You accuse me of not reading yet you clearly haven't been. The point about vollkan's willingness to lynch me wasn't made in the context of my arguments for why he is scum. It came separately, and after, and is independent of them.

This is an attack on a case, not ad hominem. It is an attack on the logic and the evidence. If it comes off as me protecting Vollkan so be it (though if anyone should be lynched for protecting Vollkan it would be Spyrex)

Why did you feel the need to point this out to us? Furthermore who is suggesting someone should be lynched merely for "defending" vollkan?

P.S. - Quit asking for deadlines. Next one who does gets my vote. Don't care if there is no other shred of evidence of being scum.

You already made this point in your last post. Why make it again, when no-one's asked for a deadline? You've simply added the provision that you may throw your vote on people for asking for a deadline, pre-emptively justifying any crap-voting that may take place on your part.

In terms of your case on mykonian, as mykonian asks, could you please refresh it in our minds. None of your more recent posts as I have read have referred to it (in fact I'm not quite sure what they refer to). Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

[vollkan]

Accuser bears the onus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding proof for suspicion.

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

You made arguments about Spyrex and he questioned them. The fact that you admitted weakness doesn't excuse you from being required to explain yourself.

The rest of us are in the position of having played for 22 pages. You are potential scum and there is no way in hell that I am giving you a leave pass to skip over the first 22 pages. I scumhunt by analysing logic, and I want to see some logic to analyse. And if you are genuinely interested in finding scum, you have 20 pages worth of debate and discussion to go over.

true, and if you reread my post i NEVER said i WASN'T going to continue reading, i merely stated that i wanted to be able to play in real time so that i wouldn't fall further behind. so far i haven't found any previous committments made by the player(s) i replaced and my interaction with spyrex has taken on a life of its own. i can swing any way i wish. why would that bother you?

If you can do both, that's great.

And yes, it would bother me greatly if you could swing any way you wanted. If you are forced to read up, we can expect conclusions to be reached and we can judge consistency and so on.

Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls. Lets play...

LYNCH

ALL

LIARS

The game today is very simple. We're going to display a list of questions that have been asked up to this point. DJ has the perilous task of quoting the responses.

CAN HE DO IT? I hope so, otherwise he goes in the shark tank.

That's why he gave the Politician's Clause - "...to the best of my knowledge"

I'm going to go through the answers to Spyrex's questions now:

1.Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

answered

No.

You simply said [your words are bolded; Spyrex's are not]:

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

I do not agree with this

You did not explain why you disagreed, yet alone explaining what was scummy

Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

answered

I can't see where. You made a point about how you don't like wordiness, but Spyrex's post was hardly lengthy.

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

why should i answer something twice?

No. What you left out was important, and "efficiency" doesn't excuse it.

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

not answered. already answered once, why should i have to answer it again? goes back to the point i was originally trying to make about your "dodginess".

You never answered this!

You accused Spyrex of "avoiding the spotlight" by taking one line out of an enormous post (108).

You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

how? by posting it. Why? because it is pertinent to the game. what kind of answer were you hoping for?

This is a piece of evasive smart-assery.

Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

did not answer. this is a set up question with an obvious answer. rhetorical, if you will.

Yeah, and pretty accurate. The way you quoted was misleading - there is no other way of putting it. The question is rhetorical, but it is still incumbent on you to justify the quoting you did.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

How?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

*facepalm*

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

thought we covered this one twice already. this circles back to my original point.

No! What reply did you expect? Answer THAT question. I don't care what it circles back to. ANSWER the goddamn question/


(ughhhhhh........that was painful)

Its built.

I don't think, after that, I really need to say anything more on the matter. I'll just let the others go ahead and read up and make a judgment.

Excellent work on "Please cite examples and give where they were answered" - I didn't ask you to do that for my own amusement. I asked it to clarify my issue with all of this.

You've done exactly what I expected and reaffirmed exactly why I found you scummy.

So, lets see what the others think.

Atrocious. That about sums up my view.

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

What strawman? If you're accusing somebody of a logical fallacy, then you should be able to explain it.

I am learning to be better at the game, and I no longer take actions which scum like vollkan can exploit as scumtells to place suspicion onto me

Because it couldn't be possible that town-vollkan could genuinely think your play to be scummy...no, that's just fool talk.

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

He didn't need to explicitly go into things, because your non-responses made things more than patently obvious.

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them to the best of his knowledge?
Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

Now, see, the fact that he didn't answer my

most important

question was very bothersome. The fact that he then compounded this by saying that he did, repeatedly, was a huge push towards scummy.

Once he, himself, started doing the thing he come in accusing me of it was enough for me to push my vote.

Now, why did I do what I did the way I did it?

Simple. I wanted to put forth a situation to, within its own framework, illustrate my problems with this play. His response was exactly what I suspected it would be.

The thought process went like this:

- Ask him, directly, yes or no, if he has answered all of the questions I have put forth.

1.) Put the list of major AND minor questions I have asked in one spot.
--- Include the questions he has actually answered.
--- Include the questions he hasn't answered but has "responded" to.
--- Include the above question, the one I wanted answered more than the others.
2.) Ask for specific reference. This was added specifically to force showing the examples cited to remove the simple "Yes, I did." I had been getting up to this point.

Now, explaining this might be a little convoluted, but I'll give it my best shot.

There were two majorly scummy things I wanted to confirm/deny if they truly existed:
1.) The inability to back away from a stance that, once pressed, could not be held.
2.) Cognitive dissonance.

The above was designed as a "trap" to see if the two were going to hold true. Both did. I designed it with as many "outs" as I could.

1.) Ask the initial question as a simple yes or no. This was, duh, to force the direct answer before even moving forward. The response of yes (hedged, of course), was a definite tell in this - saying yes with the ability to still back out if necessary. I really think this is, of course, because ultimately he knew that there were going to be questions that were unanswered and needed to give himself a way out.

2.) Ask for the examples: not just for my reference if they were answered but to force DJ-town to actually look back at the last 3 whole pages (this mess started on 21) and see if he did, in fact, answer the questions. The scum-response I was expecting? Some form of "I'm not doing this for X". Which is exactly what I got. For the record, the other responses I was theorizing around (as town responses):
- Admitting once examples were asked for that they didn't exist.
- Doing it because DJ-town actively thought I was scum. This would have been interesting because, if I was wrong and they had all been answered, I would have looked the fool.
- Doing those that had been answered, leaving the others for later or explaining how they had been indirectly answered (this would have been fairly neutral/minorly scummy depending in my read).

3.) Put in every reference to the above question I had. This, of course, was to try to trigger the cognative dissonance issue I have. I wanted to be sure it was reinforced as much as it could. I'll put the examples with their answers:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged?

Ever. many

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

So, why the dissonance?

1.) DJ initially said I was at the top of his scum list (with two others).
--- This implies that I am scum, at this point.
2.) DJ then says that the main reason for this is that I dodge questions.
--- This implies that dodging questions put forth is scummy.
----- Scummy enough that it would move someone to the top of a list.

So, from this the natural extension is that dodging questions IS, by nature, scummy.

If that is the case, why repeatedly do it? If DJ was town he would have either 1.) backed these accusations when asked in such an easy format because, by nature, it would have strengthened his case or 2.) saw that they truly hadn't been answered and, again, moved away from the argument. Logically, the one thing he wouldn't have done (as he himself says it is scummy) is dodged the questions.

This is exactly what he did.

Hence, my case was built. I just needed to explain it in full.

I really like your thought process here (clear and logical). My qualm is actually one that I see Myk raises - that DJ is inexperienced and a replacement. Combined, that gives rise to a fairly appreciable margin of error in his play. I don't agree with Ixfij that you are being premature in questioning DJ - the play that DJ has made is poor independent of any subsequent qualifications he might make to it by virtue of future reading.

There is absolutely NO need for a deadline in this game. What I would suggest is that we give DJ the time he needs to make a full reread and give opinions on everybody. At this stage, I do find DJ scummy, but I think that we really do need more content from him to judge.

Completely disagree. Ortolan is basing his vote on Vollkan at least partly on Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan. Ortolan says that this means that Vollkan was willing to lynch someone who is town, therefore Vollkan is scum.
That means that Ortolan is basing his judgement upon the quality of his own play. It is more than pertinent to this discussion to point out that Ortolan's play was hardly pro-town and therefore would have attracted a lynch from both town and scum as is evidenced to me by the fact that I am town.
That makes Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan a null tell, knocking out a major leg of his case.
Once Ortolan accepts the fact that his play was no stellar performance and stops trying to build cases on that premise, we can drop the topic.

This is an attack on a case, not ad hominem. It is an attack on the logic and the evidence. If it comes off as me protecting Vollkan so be it (though if anyone should be lynched for protecting Vollkan it would be Spyrex)

Agreed. His remark before about me "exploiting" his play just reflects this - it's an OMGUSy style of thinking which says that because I attacked him I must be scum.

I also agree with Ecto that we absolutely do

not

need a deadline at this point in time. I can't fathom why on earth people would be advocating one.

[SpyreX]

Hey, GUESS WHAT? <3 Volk.

Keep in mind the deadline I asked for was before this. Look at when I asked for it and then see if it made more sense.

[Ectomancer]

First of all,

you are making arguments with the premise that YOU are town

. As you say, this is not known by any means. In addition, unless you are stating that myself, Vollkan, and Spyrex are 3 scum in a 10 player game,

there was at least 1 town member on your wagon and one of them was me

. Care to argue over whether there would be 3 scum in a 10 player game?

Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

Give me a break. Don't give us this lameass excuse to throw off attention to the fact that you ARE tunnelvisioned on Vollkan to the exclusion of everything else.
Why the biased statement? How do you know if it is sludge if you dont even recall it?? Here is the post and it isn't a case buried somewhere or pieced together over several posts. It was ALREADY summarized for you.

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________


@TDC - I dont sleep with an alarm clock because, in general, my internal clock works fine and wakes me when it gets close to being time to get up. Mod vote counts are roughly a game equivalent of that. I may take a quick glance at it, but not closely unless I'm going back looking at trends, or I know that a wagon has been building enough that a more accurate count than my general awareness is needed.

unvote, vote Mykonian

P.S. - You can take this as you will, but I would vig you in a heartbeat.

[vollkan]

Keep in mind the deadline I asked for was before this. Look at when I asked for it and then see if it made more sense.

I think I understand, but I'd prefer it if you'd explain to me what the difference between "then" and "now" is in respect of deadline appropriateness.

[SpyreX]

The pages immediately before I mentioned it (and on it) were dominated with the discussion between you and ort. Now, OP and ort are behaving like bad masons, but I still think they are masons nonetheless. I am not voting for you.

The other major source of activity was the case on SL. That has stagnated.

Then ort said he was not moving his vote on you.

So, the only way at that point to shake the inactives would be a deadline.

Then, of course, DJ jumps in with this. Hence I no longer see the need for it - unless it again dies and we are where we were once again.

[ortolan]

First of all,

you are making arguments with the premise that YOU are town

. As you say, this is not known by any means. In addition, unless you are stating that myself, Vollkan, and Spyrex are 3 scum in a 10 player game,

there was at least 1 town member on your wagon and one of them was me

. Care to argue over whether there would be 3 scum in a 10 player game?

When did I say I think SpyreX is scum? (well admittedly he was one my suspects in the "post your three top suspects" game but that doesn't mean I think he is scum- it was more from a process of elimination, which is now redundant due to revised opinions anyhow). And haven't you again adopted the entirely-reducible-to-WIFOM attitude of "hehe I *know* I'm town, I don't *know* you are".

In response to your points about my lack of playing ability:

Firstly, it is independent of my alignment.
Secondly, it occurred in the past and I don't believe it applies presently.
Thirdly, I never disputed that I had played badly initially.
Fourthly, as mrfixij says, all you seem to be doing by referring to my acknowledged previous bad play is distracting attention from any actually relevant discussions.

Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

Give me a break. Don't give us this lameass excuse to throw off attention to the fact that you ARE tunnelvisioned on Vollkan to the exclusion of everything else.
Why the biased statement? How do you know if it is sludge if you dont even recall it??

Massive lol at this. If you haven't noticed who I've been attacking in my last two posts, it's not vollkan, it's you. Nice use of the chainsaw defence on someone who I'm not even targetting currently. For a good example of a "biased statement" read the sentence preceding your use of this phrase.

Here is the post and it isn't a case buried somewhere or pieced together over several posts. It was ALREADY summarized for you.

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________

Honestly, from a completely impartial perspective, I don't even see how this is a case. You've just given us two possible interpretations of mykonian's behaviour consistent with him being scum, but no reason to buy either of them.

P.S. - You can take this as you will, but I would vig you in a heartbeat.

I assume this is addressed to me? I "take it" as another useless remark on your part. But it is nice to know you would vig me, this knowledge does assist in scum-catching.

[vollkan]

When did I say I think SpyreX is scum? (well admittedly he was one my suspects in the "post your three top suspects" game but that doesn't mean I think he is scum- it was more from a process of elimination, which is now redundant due to revised opinions anyhow).

1) Did you actually declare your revised opinions?

2) That doesn't really matter though because the point here is that you are playing from a presumption that no townie could have reasonably suspected you, which would mean that you would have to suspect the wagonners.

And haven't you again adopted the entirely-reducible-to-WIFOM attitude of "hehe I *know* I'm town, I don't *know* you are".

No. He hasn't adopted that defence. What he is saying is that it's absurd that you would treat the wagonners of you as inherently scummy unless you are saying that all 3 of Ecto, Spyrex and myself are scum.

Massive lol at this. If you haven't noticed who I've been attacking in my last two posts, it's not vollkan, it's you. Nice use of the chainsaw defence on someone who I'm not even targetting currently. For a good example of a "biased statement" read the sentence preceding your use of this phrase.

I've probably said this before, but I think the whole idea of "chainsaw" is a load of BS. It's just another emotive label like "WIFOM" or "OMGUS" that's open to misuse and, based on the number of times I have seen it, is never applied to anything which is actually scummy.

And you are currently targeting me. You have your vote on me and we've been arguing pretty much continuously for pages now.

Honestly, from a completely impartial perspective, I don't even see how this is a case. You've just given us two possible interpretations of mykonian's behaviour consistent with him being scum, but no reason to buy either of them.

Uh no. Mykonian's play there is suspicious (sudden and unexplained changes in opinion hint very strongly of opportunism) and he has given the meaning of the play in two different scenarios. Think about it, town-Ecto could hardly have simply presented one of them, because SL's alignment would be ambiguous to him.

But it is nice to know you would vig me, this knowledge does assist in scum-catching.

I assume you are being sarcastic.

It actually does assist in scum-hunting, though. You have been tunneling me with a BS case and causing me immense frustration over it. Ecto has also expressed a clear view on your "case". That assists scum-hunting because it is likely to make other people take a second look before following you.

[vollkan]

The pages immediately before I mentioned it (and on it) were dominated with the discussion between you and ort. Now, OP and ort are behaving like bad masons, but I still think they are masons nonetheless. I am not voting for you.

The other major source of activity was the case on SL. That has stagnated.

Then ort said he was not moving his vote on you.

So, the only way at that point to shake the inactives would be a deadline.

Then, of course, DJ jumps in with this. Hence I no longer see the need for it - unless it again dies and we are where we were once again.

That's what I imagined. I'm satisfied with this explanation

[Ectomancer]

First of all,

you are making arguments with the premise that YOU are town

. As you say, this is not known by any means. In addition, unless you are stating that myself, Vollkan, and Spyrex are 3 scum in a 10 player game,

there was at least 1 town member on your wagon and one of them was me

. Care to argue over whether there would be 3 scum in a 10 player game?

When did I say I think SpyreX is scum? (well admittedly he was one my suspects in the "post your three top suspects" game but that doesn't mean I think he is scum- it was more from a process of elimination, which is now redundant due to revised opinions anyhow). And haven't you again adopted the entirely-reducible-to-WIFOM attitude of "hehe I *know* I'm town, I don't *know* you are".

Thanks for making my point for me. Durrh. It doesn't matter if you believe that I am town or not, the point is, town was on your wagon for good reason. It doesn't matter if it was me, Vollkan, or Spyrex.
ONCE AGAIN IN CASE YOU MISSED IT. Are you planning to argue for 3 scum in this game? If so, for town to NOT to have been on your wagon that would HAVE to be myself, Vollkan, and Spyrex.

In response to your points about my lack of playing ability:

Firstly, it is independent of my alignment.
Secondly, it occurred in the past and I don't believe it applies presently.
Thirdly, I never disputed that I had played badly initially.
Fourthly, as mrfixij says, all you seem to be doing by referring to my acknowledged previous bad play is distracting attention from any actually relevant discussions.

Grant me the ^!##@ serenity...

1: Who said it wasn't??
2: When you are trying to use it to implicate someone it damn sure does.
3: Then why are you trying to say that Vollkan must be scum for wanting to lynch you??
4: WTF? Your case is faulty so my pointing it out is distracting? From what? Your narrow focus?

Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

Give me a break. Don't give us this lameass excuse to throw off attention to the fact that you ARE tunnelvisioned on Vollkan to the exclusion of everything else.
Why the biased statement? How do you know if it is sludge if you dont even recall it??

Massive lol at this. If you haven't noticed who I've been attacking in my last two posts, it's not vollkan, it's you. Nice use of the chainsaw defence on someone who I'm not even targetting currently. For a good example of a "biased statement" read the sentence preceding your use of this phrase.

<facepalm>

Look here, this is the way time works. It goes one way, see? Your focus was singularly on Vollkan. Just because I point it out along with a flaw in your reasoning, your resulting OMGUS does not change history. You still had tunnel vision and my argument has not lost a whit of its validity. It's not impressive that you decided to turn on your critic.

P.S. - You can take this as you will, but I would vig you in a heartbeat.

I assume this is addressed to me? I "take it" as another useless remark on your part. But it is nice to know you would vig me, this knowledge does assist in scum-catching.

I'm a great fan of sarcasm.

[Ectomancer]

Here is the post and it isn't a case buried somewhere or pieced together over several posts. It was ALREADY summarized for you.

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________

Honestly, from a completely impartial perspective, I don't even see how this is a case. You've just given us two possible interpretations of mykonian's behaviour consistent with him being scum, but no reason to buy either of them.

Maybe you are just misunderstanding what I'm trying to say then. The crux of the case is inconsistent behavior on Mykonian's part. This is illustrated by his early attack on SL with some legitimate legs to stand on, to unvoting, to now vehemently defending him with no discernable change in game state that would allow for such a reversal.
Vollkan asked me how this could be interpreted to see Mykonian as scum. I provided 2 scenarios based upon the flipflop in which the logical conclusion would result in Mykonian as scum.
As you can see, SL's alignment is not revealed should Mykonian flip scum, another point I was clarifying as it is of import when deciding who to lynch today to maximize our information return.

[Ectomancer]

Heh, I took so long putting my responses together that Vollkan beat me to the punch.

[ortolan]

vollkan- why did you jump in before Ectomancer himself could rebut my points? There's pretty much consensus that that's scummy as all hell.

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

Basically it comes down to my point about my earlier play. It was not simply "bad" per se, but "bad" additionally because it was able to be twisted as a scum-tell by a player with an agenda. I believe vollkan falls into this category, and gave examples of his opportunistic stances when attacking not just me but others.

Your argument that "you must have genuinely played badly because there was clearly at least one town on your wagon" is wrong because:

- it rebuts something that was not claimed to begin with
- there is nothing guaranteeing not all of you are scum (although the prior probability of this is extremely, extremely low)
- you were not the only people to vote for me, and clearly my play came across as suspicious. That doesn't mean I can't attack clear opportunism in vollkan's manner of play.

You still had tunnel vision and my argument has not lost a whit of its validity.

What's this got to do with anything? My current stance is the only thing that is relevant, unless you are arguing I am scum for flip-flopping.

[SpyreX]

@Volk, Ecto:

At this point do you believe the mason claim?

[mykonian]

I love vollkans post 606.

And ecto, the way you present it there you do two important things: first, you assume that my first attack on spring was a strong one, which it wasn't, I criticized a weak FoS from spring. Really not a stance I would like to stay long, luckily I didn't have to, because it was my first post, day 1. Second, you only name the scenario's where I am scum. Not surprising you end on the conclusion that I'm scum everytime.

And I certainly hope you are not the vig

[ortolan]

*Yawn*

[ortolan]

(@ SpyreX)

[mykonian]

orto, you got to focus more on reading. I see in the last view posts that you are misreading things, like this post from spyrex.

[ortolan]

um???

I "yawned" to express my thoughts that the train of discussion he's again trying to delve into is tedious and pointless. I didn't misread what he said.

[don_johnson]

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

What strawman? If you're accusing somebody of a logical fallacy, then you should be able to explain it.

i have 17 pages to read. as i am reading i am cutting and pasting things that seem to stand out of everyones posts. selective quoting to me is more efficient than quoting entire posts if most of what the post contains seems irrelevant.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted?

just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently.

because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

let me expand on your concern about my selective quoting from post 108 as it seems to be a sore spot:

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it. you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy. you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

does that make you scum? no. it just means that you are good at deflecting suspicion. did it arouse my suspicion at the time? yes. can we apply this to whats going on now? of course. reread the last few pages and watch what goes on around you and i...