Ectomancer wrote:vote OrangePenguin
Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.
"Hey, if we get into trouble, let's claim mason so town wont lynch us and then play scummy so that "scum" wont kill us. Haha!"
At the very least, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels need to be neutered. Take out the inactive one.
Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.
My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.
The only real advantage in lynching a mason today would be that the confirmation would be out of the way as quickly as possible, and we would still learn something from the nightkill/s.
But, at this stage, I would prefer a suspicion lynch.
don_johnson wrote:
correct, which is why voting patterns should be relevant.
How is that relevant at all to the fact that you denied Spyrex posted scumhunting?
DJ wrote:
what was that phrase again? cherrypicking?
There's a distinction between "not quoting everything"
and "cherrypicking". I didn't quote everything you said, because the bit I wanted to address was the first sentence. Nothing in the rest of that paragraph in any way affected the first sentence.
DJ wrote:
spyrex made it seem as though i was pushing the case against him when in fact i had explained it was weak. that to me is mischaracterization. \
No. If a player makes an argument against another player, they are culpable for their reasoning no matter how much clout they give the point. Clearly, the seriousness attached has some relevance, but it isn't a leavepass. You did push a case on Spyrex, and you saying it was weak doesn't alter that. If I steal a television and then say "but it was only a little one", I am still guilty.
DJ wrote:
making an out of context quote wall could very well be considered minor changes to wording. no?
Do you mean Syprex's question list? If so, then it was out of context, but there was no problem since he wasn't misrepping you.
DJ wrote:
volkan wrote:
1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is:
Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.
2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:
DJ wrote: He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.
You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.
3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.
1) maybe that is your issue, but it is not mine. because:
2) what is bolded above is what i WROTE IN MY NOTES. it did not refer solely to that single post. it was my general feeling of spyrex's play. i have explained this several times now but you choose not to accept it. that post just grabbed my attention.
1) Where did you explain this before?
2) Why didn't the italicised text have any bearing on your "general read"?
DJ wrote:
he also wrote in that post:
spyrex wrote:There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.
why would huntin' begin if he was already doing it?
I can't speak for Spyrex, but I'd wager he is distinguihsing between early-game attacks and later-game scumhunting. Nothing seriously potent had come up, so he was probably looking to have things move on.
DJ wrote:
3) what? i said that i didn't believe him to be scumhunting. he said there was "factual evidence" that he was because the post contained his feelings about who might be scum. I DIDN"T BELIEVE HIM. so i wrote in my notes :
He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.
Which leads me back the point about the italicised text
DJ wrote:
4) absolutely. how many times do we have to cover the same ground?
Seemingly forever.
Orto wrote:
Apparently vollkan has a reputation for being good at this game. In light of this I find his dogged argumentation extremely perplexing. The points he argues with don_johnson are both extremely subjective and convoluted. They aren't good scumtells, they're just vollkan being blatantly nitpicky to a point which benefits no-one. It's not just don_johnson he's done it with this game either.
*sigh* How am I being "extremely subjective"? As for convoluted, it's entirely DJ's fault for throwing in a whole heap of tangential defences. The point most time has been spent on, post 52, is fairly simple:
Spyrex made a post which contained his reasoning on people. DJ, in his comments on that post (he now says they were just directed generally), snipped out the reasoning bits from the post and accused Spyrex of not scum-hunting.
There's other stuff as well, but most of that is all fairly simple and hasn't been laboriously argued.
Orto wrote:
I do recall reading in mafia discussion a comment that mafia is, or should be more a psychological guessing game than one which worships "logic". I find vollkan's persistent adherence to a skewed conception of logic and an almost deliberate effort to tunnel in his arguments rather than think of alternative explanations for others' behaviour as something he would only do as scum.
For crying out loud, more than anybody else I have ranted and raved about the need to consider alternatives - and now you are telling me that I am not doing it. I've already mentioned the prospect of DJ being newb replacer.
Mafia is psychological, yes. But the only insight we have into a person's mind is their reasoning and their logic. You try playing a game with people that just gut vote and so on, and see how far you get.
Ecto wrote:
@TDC - Think of it as a protest vote. Kind of like putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. You know you aren't going to win, but you do it anyhow.
Just by voting for the Libertarians you have already failed.