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

[SpyreX]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

Whether or not the statements I made were true isn't the issue. It is the fact that the statments - my scumhunting - were made. By removing the italicized sections you were denying that my statements were made.

The italics weren't in the original posts - they were added in AFTER YOU ACTIVELY OMITTED THEM.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Not "I said I was" - the statements removed were the scumhunting. They are direct factual evidence.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

I put this first for a reason. Why don't I (and Volk apparently) aceept explanations:

actually i did.

Shit like this. Thats why. If people attacking you are being dense, CALL THEM ON IT. This just reinforces the fact you are dodging and not answering things.

I hate to put vollkan at L-2, but given the evidence presented by ort, I agree that he's a better choice than don. UNvote. vote: vollkan

I hate you guys so much right now.

[don_johnson]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

Whether or not the statements I made were true isn't the issue. It is the fact that the statments - my scumhunting - were made. By removing the italicized sections you were denying that my statements were made.

whether or not the statements are true

is

the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

The italics weren't in the original posts - they were added in AFTER YOU ACTIVELY OMITTED THEM.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Not "I said I was" -

the statements removed were the scumhunting.

They are direct factual evidence.

bolded is your opinion. it is not direct factual evidence of anything. anyone can pretend to be scumhunting. it is whether or not people believe in the truth of your statements that counts.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

I put this first for a reason. Why don't I (and Volk apparently) aceept explanations:

actually i did.

Shit like this. Thats why. If people attacking you are being dense, CALL THEM ON IT. This just reinforces the fact you are dodging and not answering things.

funny how you leave out the quote in which "actually i did" explain myself.

[ortolan]

Cheers OP.

Only two more votes needed for vollkan.

The way I see it; to me or OP, vollkan has a 25% or 37.5% prior probability of being scum (depending on there being 2 or 3 scum). To any townies his odds of being scum are 22%/33%. I would say my subjective posterior probability has probably risen to around 99.5% or so based on the way he's played, but you can make up your own mind.

However, I ask you- who seems a better lynch than vollkan? Having attempted to read the back-and-forth between SpyreX and don_johnson I find little evidence pointing to either being scummy- their attacks on each other mainly involve cherry-picking minor "inconsistencies" in each other's attitudes, which I think are a waste of time and furthermore no more likely to appear in the posts of scum than townies. It seems don_johnson is mainly being attacked for the same thing I was- it wasn't a good scumtell in my case and it shouldn't be in his. I believe it relates to the fact that this game tends to have a large number of posts and a small amount of useful content.

Basically we have nothing to go off- we have no night results, no power role claims beyond masons which has apparently had little effect in the eyes of some on our credibility. We are going to lynch someone at the end of the day, and I see no more viable an option than vollkan. He's ridden about five different bandwagons in the game- the back-and-forth between him and Ecto, him wagoning me, him wagoning SL, now he's trying to trample don_johnson in his horse-drawn-cart. Think of the information potential.

I also see that vollkan has become increasingly aggravated as the pressure builds on him- in the course of writing post 641 his head apparently impacted not only his palm but later his desk in frustration. I can't see any other explanation for this than scum crumbling under pressure.

don_johnson looks like the only other potential lynch. don: If you are town, then you know anyone other than yourself has a greater probability of being scum. Assuming a binary lynch choice I suggest you change your vote to vollkan. I don't see, even if he flips town this would make me more suspicious of you. So, as a townie, you really have nothing to lose by lynching him.

Now it remains simply to convince either mykonian or TDC.

vollkan obviously isn't going to vote himself and I have reason to believe Ecto won't either . I don't think SpyreX is scum but he has some sort of a "reverse-tunneling" attitude to vollkan this game where everything vollkan says is interpreted in the most favourable light possible.

Anyway, I do hope mykonian or TDC will consider a vollkan vote.

[Ectomancer]

So...I see Ortolan has two votes in this game so long as OP is alive...

[ortolan]

...which is good if it's used for a good cause e.g. lynching vollkan

actually I think that statement's far from true anyway, from what I remember OP's been voting for different people to me for the vast majority of this game, I think like any good player he's just picked up on vollkan's scumminess.

[orangepenguin]

So...I see Ortolan has two votes in this game so long as OP is alive...

Alive? No. Just this day. If one of us do die tonight though, I would prefer for them to take me instead of ort, since he's more useful.

[SpyreX]

The sad thing is the scum is never, ever going to kill either one of you. Why would they?

Who's a better lynch than Volk? SL and DJ jump to the top of my head. But, hey, who am I.

Back to the story at hand:

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

You said I wasn't scumhunting. Not that you didn't agree with what I said as far as scumhunting. Those are different. You did deny that those statements were made.

funny how you leave out the quote in which "actually i did" explain myself.

Then WHY NOT POST IT FFS.

I'm on V/LA for a while after this. I'll keep checking in, but dont expect as much from me.

Have fun, wherever you might be! Except if it's sad. Then don't have any fun at all.

[Ectomancer]

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.

[vollkan]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false. Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1) Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.
2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3) Whether or not you voted is meaningless. If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple: it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

And I find it incredibly scummy of you that you would point the finger at Spyrex by saying he boxed you into a "no win situation". News flash: The situation was "no win" because of your own refusal to answer at first instance. It's entirely your fault. Spyrex is in no way to blame for highlighting your sins.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

Nowhere have I said that every use of the term "strawman" has to be fully explained at first instance, but it has to be explained if asked. Now, when I accused you of strawmanning Spyrex my reason was fairly simple. Spyrex posted one thing (a post containing scumhunting), which you instead cherry-pick from and, rather than attacking what Spyrex actually said, you attack a fantasy-post of your own creation.

I hate you guys so much right now.

<3

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

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:

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.

Cheers OP.

Only two more votes needed for vollkan.

Well done OP. Orto has now officially ordained you as a member of the Masonic Brethren of the Obstinate Bullshit.

The way I see it; to me or OP, vollkan has a 25% or 37.5% prior probability of being scum (depending on there being 2 or 3 scum). To any townies his odds of being scum are 22%/33%. I would say my subjective posterior probability has probably risen to around 99.5% or so based on the way he's played, but you can make up your own mind.

Yes, Orto, I have already acknowledged that you are blinded on me. No need to go and prove my point by expressing a degree of certainty that no reasonable townie possibly can hold.

I also see that vollkan has become increasingly aggravated as the pressure builds on him- in the course of writing post 641 his head apparently impacted not only his palm but later his desk in frustration. I can't see any other explanation for this than scum crumbling under pressure.

No, it's impossible that town-vollkan could be getting frustrated by continually having crap arguments hurled at him.

Who's a better lynch than Volk? SL and DJ jump to the top of my head. But, hey, who am I.

Who are you? Just a refreshing breath of sanity in Mini 701 - Funny Farm Mafia.

[don_johnson]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false. Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

correct, which is why voting patterns should be relevant.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1) Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.
2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3) Whether or not you voted is meaningless. If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

interesting how you decide which facts affect which points. i didn't realize you were the all knowing voice of wisdom. in case anyone cares, here is the whole quote:

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

what was that phrase again? cherrypicking?

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple: it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

from wiki:

A "Straw man" argument (also called "setting up a straw man") involves

mischracterizing your opponent's position

in order to present a weaker argument than they have actually given, thereby allowing you to defeat it. It usually involves subtle changes to the given facts of the matter, or

minor changes to wording

that lead to semantic differences in what is said.

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. making an out of context quote wall could very well be considered minor changes to wording. no?

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

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:

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. he also wrote in that post:

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?
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.

4) absolutely. how many times do we have to cover the same ground?

[TDC]

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.

Uh.. what? Why do we need to test this today?

Here's what happens if we just don't test it at all:

Let's assume they are town, we have two scum and lynch randomly among everyone but the masons:
Day 1: 25% of hitting scum (which immediately confirms the masons)
Failing that (and assuming that the masons are not nightkilled), we get
Day 2: 2 Masons, 6 Others, two of which scum. 33% of hitting scum there
That gives us a probabitly of 0.25+0.75*0.33=50% of confirming them by random lynching amongst the others if they are town before we reach LyLo.
Failing that we enter Day 3 with: 2 Masons, 4 others, two of which are scum.
If they are scum, we lynch town twice and enter Day 3 with our 2 scum masons and 4 townies.

By then we should have a much better idea about the 4 remaining non-masons to judge whether the masons are to trust or not.

Conclusion: Even if they are not nightkilled, we still have a 50% chance of confirming them within 2 days if they're really town.

Your plan is to lynch one of them right now, which if they're town results in Day 2 starting with either 1 confirmed mason, 7 others (2 of which are scum) or just 8 players (2 of which are scum).
If they're scum, we obviously win right away. (Though last time I checked it doesn't matter at all whether we win Day 2 or Day 4, we might as well "win right away" after keeping them alive for 2 days).

Where then, is the advantage in finding out today?

[ortolan]

I was just going to make a post like the above, but I will add additional points.

When is it ever a good idea to test a mason claim with a lynch day one? Surely if you claim to be a decent player you would never suggest this as town.

vote OrangePenguin

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

The surety with which you say that is worrying (especially when clearly the idea has no merit anyway). Looks to me like a chainsaw defence of vollkan.

I will also make the point that OP's play this game is entirely consistent with his town meta (not that I'm criticising it). I have played with him in one previous game and read a game he was in- in both he was town and he's acting in a similar way this game. If you want to lynch him you need a better reason than policy based on his general playstyle, especially in light of his mason claim.

I will take the opportunity to make a few more points against vollkan:

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.

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.

TDC: who do you think we should lynch?

[Ectomancer]

@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.

Now that I've stirred you, mind taking the lead here? I re-read over your posts, and you have contributed, but you haven't taken a lead role as far as I can tell in a brief skim. We've gotten ourselves into a deadlock and we need to come up with a way to break it. Let's hear the direction you think we should be taking.

[Ectomancer]

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.

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.

Best argument you've made this game.

[vollkan]

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.

correct, which is why voting patterns should be relevant.

How is that relevant at all to the fact that you denied Spyrex posted scumhunting?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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"?

he also wrote in that post:

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.

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

4) absolutely. how many times do we have to cover the same ground?

Seemingly forever.

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.

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.

@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.

[Ectomancer]

Quote:
He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

I'm sure you think there is a distinction, but I fail to see it in reference to Spyrex. He was scumhunting, you said twice or more that he wasn't, but its pretty clear that he has been in my view. In fact, early on it was Spyrex who took the offensive with me, far more so than Vollkan IIRC.
I dont know why we are splitting fine hairs and completely missing each others point in this game. I realize that people are saying that Vollkan has been stretching the conversation out, but I swear I see his recent antagonists constantly repeating the same thing in a different, and longer manner. Then he is attacked for answering repeatedly to the same thing?
Calling it as a see it.

[ortolan]

I realize that people are saying that Vollkan has been stretching the conversation out, but I swear I see his recent antagonists constantly repeating the same thing in a different, and longer manner. Then he is attacked for answering repeatedly to the same thing?

It goes both ways. But vollkan's arguments with pretty much everyone this game have always seemed to devolve into being extremely nitpicky and subjective. I furthermore think he promotes this deliberately. Additionally, I don't see how he, being a good player, can think this method will help find 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.

Making a show about apparently doing so is not the same as doing so. Again, it's parallel t your attack on me. You "considered" the possibility I was new then found a reason to dismiss it. It's not hard to find ways of "dismissing" ideas like this, even if you pretend to countenance them to begin with.

Mafia is psychological, yes. But the only insight we have into a person's mind is their reasoning and their logic.

Do you seriously believe that? Scum can easily fake townieness by conforming to archetypes of "logic". That's incidentally, what I think you're doing this game.

[vollkan]

It goes both ways. But vollkan's arguments with pretty much everyone this game have always seemed to devolve into being extremely nitpicky and subjective. I furthermore think he promotes this deliberately. Additionally, I don't see how he, being a good player, can think this method will help find scum.

I am not being nitpicky. I am attacking craplogic, as I have been doing all game and as I always do?

For the second time, what the heck do you mean by your accusation that I am being "subjective"?

I think it finds scum because, as I am sure I have already explained, I am of the view that scum expose themselves most distinctly through craplogic and faulty reasoning.

Making a show about apparently doing so is not the same as doing so. Again, it's parallel t your attack on me. You "considered" the possibility I was new then found a reason to dismiss it. It's not hard to find ways of "dismissing" ideas like this, even if you pretend to countenance them to begin with.

By all means, dispute the manner that I dismiss alternatives BUT YOU ACCUSED ME OF NOT CONSIDERING THEM. I've already explained why I dismissed alternative theories for you. And it is hard if the attack is not genuine. Sure, it is certainly doable, but that isn't the point.

Do you seriously believe that? Scum can easily fake townieness by conforming to archetypes of "logic". That's incidentally, what I think you're doing this game.

Scum can fake any sort of playstyle, and perfect scum would always succeed. Ultimatley, though, normal people scum have an inherently opportunistic drive which leaves scum open to dodgy/inconsistent/etc. reasoning.

[orangepenguin]

Yes, let's waste our lynch on somebody who is basically confirmed.

FOS: Ecto

I really like my vollkan vote, but I now remember why I was voting ecto back in the day...

[vollkan]

Yes, let's waste our lynch on somebody who is basically confirmed. FOS: Ecto

I don't agree with Ecto's conclusion, but it certainly isn't FoSworthy because you and Orto are most certainly not

basically confirmed

. FAR from it.

[ortolan]

vollkan; for someone who has emphasised "logic" so much this game it is patently ridiculous that you ignore TDC's post 660, which features one of the most logical and objectively ascertainable points that has been made this game. Namely that even *speculating* as to whether OP and I are not masons is useless at this point; because if we're not, we have to be a scumpair. Thus even if you were to let us lynch whomever we want both today _AND_ tomorrow, if we were scum it is still a mere matter of convention to lynch us days 3 and 4 and take the game for town. Why, then, do you continue to even entertain speculation about us not being masons on day 1?

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.

This was also made after Post 660. Again, why would wasting a vig on me or OP be useful on night one? You love throwing around the word "logic" but blatantly contradict the only purely objective thing that has been said all game. You need to be lynched.

[mykonian]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it? You are making it far to easy for orto to confirm all his theory's.

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

and too many persons here are attacking the person that attacks them.

[vollkan]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it?

Ahem..

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.

I don't agree with Ecto's conclusion

Just to make it completely obvious

, but it certainly isn't FoSworthy because you and Orto are most certainly not basically confirmed. FAR from it.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO. I certainly do not think his idea is unreasonable (ie. I am not going to suspect him for it), but I do not agree with him.

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

Do you think DJ is scummy?

[mykonian]

If mrfixij wasn't so obviously hiding, don would be my first choice.

and sorry vollkan, I missed that statement.

[don_johnson]

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

who is don attacking? that's right, folks... noone! how many times do i have to say it? i posted my thoughts on this game prematurely. sorry, but i found spyrex to be scummy IN MY EYES after about 5 or 6 pages of this thread. you all had the advantage of knowing him for much longer than i did when i formed my opinion. not to mention i offered evidence of another players frustration with spyrex because of extremely similar issues during that same time period in the thread(which people, for some reason are not saying is evidence). [sarcasm]it would be evidence if spyrex wrote it, though, because we should believe everything he writes.[/sarcasm]

just because he writes his opinions on who is and who isn't scum doesn't necessarily mean he's scumhunting.

why do people choose not to understand that statement? what is evidence to you may not be evidence to everyone.

the general feeling i had on him up until that point was what i wrote in my notes. at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted. for some reason people are not willing to move on.

i have answered the same questions asked several different ways. mykonian himself has still not answered mine. am i to understand that you are voting me because i "attacked" a protown player? because i have recanted, and i think in the last few pages if you are not understanding my reasoning you are simply choosing not to.

volkan: why is everyone else here allowed to have opinions but me?

How is that relevant at all to the fact that you denied Spyrex posted scumhunting?

this was explained. i did not "deny" he posted scumhunting. i simply DID NOT BELIEVE HIM and I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO.

interesting. i am really feeling like a second class citizen around these parts. maybe if i ask you a few hundred times why you don't agree with orto you will come up with a better answer.

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

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

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.

this is your opinion. i felt misrepresented.

1) Where did you explain this before?
2) Why didn't the italicised text have any bearing on your "general read"?

1) what? explain what? that i didn't BELIEVE spyrex to be scumhunting just because he wrote that he was? cause i have explained that quite a bit now.
2)

it did. I DIDN"T F*%^ing BELIEVE IT.

may i finish catching up now?