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

[SpyreX]

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

He stated, not insinuated, that your absence of voting me is irrelevant in the larger scope of what was going on. Not that voting is irrelevant, ffs.

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

Patterns are relevant, of course. However, what can you pull out of a pattern when you have no concrete evidence to back it? Without a lynch the patterns mean much less.

Of course, see above. You threw on a no-explanation bandwagon vote to prove to Volkan a theory that had nothing to do with what he was saying. In addition, based on the idea of relevance of voting patterns (and, of course, rationales for said patterns) - your vote again stands out as a wth vote.

short answer, yes. you have facts which you believe prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

I'm almost speechless.
It is not simple conjecture - it IS a confirmable hypothesis based on the elements of your play lending to a set conclusion: that you are scum.
If I have facts which lend to my case it is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of are the facts true. If they are not, show concisely where they are not and the plan has to be re-evaluated.
It's really, really hard not to scream strawman at the fact you are saying I think you are scum

for

your weak case - I think I've been pretty clear on its a combination of factors relating to the discussion of said case: the backpedaling, the evasiveness (which is doubly so since you said that is what I was scummy for), the lying and now we can add this "gambit" vote on Volk which makes no real sense as well.
There is no way you can think its simply "He thinks I'm scum because I made a weak case." Its not possible.

Also, the fact that this whole paragraph reads as: "Well, NOTHING is solid and we may always be wrong so what is the point in factual scumhunting since its all just conjecture anyways.." is, well, garbage.

worst is an extremely subjective term, and again, nothing is absolute on day 1. i personally believe that voting patterns are the most likely area where scum slip up. for instance, why do people notice bandwagoning? it is not necessarily a scumtell, but a pattern of bandwagon votes with no "evidence", or "weak evidence" produced to back them can be a good indicator of a player trying to simply work towards "a lynch" and not necessarily the "best lynch".

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed. i have only unvoted in order to further avoid the chance of volkan being hammered without due process.(i believe he was still at L-2). his circular logic(however subjective it may be of me to believe), still has him on my radar. my issues with volkan revolve around the fact that he is unwilling to admit that he may be wrong about anything. he refuses to concede any ground no matter who he is debating. that is troubling to me.

Patterns still need end results for true analysis. However, fine - yes people watch bandwagon voters with minimal rationale (see yourself) because, get this, scum want to lynch town yet not stand out negatively for it. Yet, they have the onus of knowing who they are trying to lynch is, in fact, actually town to interfere with their process. How to deal with this? Hop on a wagon with -some- agreeable reason.

Hence everyone is weary of a wagon, especially one that grows really fast on flimsy grounds.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it

seems

to me.

[vollkan]

That point being the incessant arguing and attacking of Ortolan after his mason claim.

I don't think my arguing was incessant. So much of the first things I say get challenged that I am forced to explain in detail about things. It's a Catch-22 to then accuse me of incessant arguing when, were I to do otherwise, I would be accused of dodging or evading.

This comes back to the point that I think this is largely a stylistic point. I haven't "over-responded" to things (arguing just to obfuscate), but my verbose style gives that appearance (hence my need for meta to affirm that I am stylistically consistent in argument)

You're starting to break down a little bit in your play. I don't know if this is a result of the accusation and increasing pressure upon you, or a frustrated backlash to play from the rest of us that you deem as unsuitable and poor. Either way could be interpreted as scummy, but is more a nulltell than anything.

Agreed.

To psychoanalyse myself, I put so much effort into arguing my points and trying to explain myself that it really gets to me if I feel like I am being ignored/unreasonably misunderstood.

@Fixfij: Why no consideration of Spyrex in your post?

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

I didn't "set you up". Saying I "set you up" presumes that I deliberately laid a trap and, thus, presumes I am scum. The believed thing was an expressed inconsistency in your own posts which I pointed out.

plus, i am experienceing with volkan what several other players have already in this game, which is his circular logic and frustrating play

Now my logic is "circular"? Pray tell, how?

his constant demand that i explain my explanations and continually repost my evidence is exasperating.

I didn't demand continual reposting.

What I did was simple: I wanted to force you to give evidence for your assertion of cherrypicking so I first forced you to identify a post. Then I demanded you explain where in that post. It's not forcing you to re-explain yourself; it's just forcing you to become more specific.

post 658: italicized is subjective material. these are opinions you present as facts. they are opinions.

Ah, you see, there's your problem. You are equating "opinion" with "subjective", when the two are actually very different. The definition of "subjective" that I used, and which I explained as problematic, was a claim which is unfalsifiable (eg. a claim that I am "ungenuine"). To illustrate:

"George W. Bush was a bad President because he invaded Iraq on a lie" is a subjective opinion (it's

my

opinion). But it is "objective" in the sense I have defined the terms here because it rests on a reason.

In contrast,
"George W. Bush was a bad President because I think he was bad" is "subjective" in the scummy sense of the term. Just like "vollkan is ungenuine because I feel he has an unclear perspective" is also subjective. It cannot be disputed or challenged in any way.

bolded is the statment you "cherrypicked". here is the original post:

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.

by only quoting and responding to the first sentence with subjective opinions you are misrepresenting my point of view. hence: strawmanning.

Well, actually, I quoted the first two sentences.

That wasn't cherrypicking, though. What I was challenging was your assertion that the admission of weakness and the not voting were "evidence". The subsequent sentences don't at all bear upon that. Sentence 3 is you ranting about the way you are being treated, repeating the thing about the "sprex scumhunting", and repeating the prjeudice thing.

I didn't quote everything, because I didn't need to. I didn't in any way misrepresent you or strawman or anything by the quoting you identify.

i never launched a "case" against volkan. i only recently described anything he has done as "scummy". i voted to prove a point and the subsequent discussion has led to me offer "evidence" of his hypocrisy(which i have, if you've been reading). my vote was a gambit. i did it to prove the relevance of votes themselves. heres a little of my theory:

day 1 of a mafia game is full of almost entirely wifom arguments. there is usually nothing but subjective arguments all around. opinions are all we see, and opinions are, by definition, subjective. there are a very few things which can actually be tracked and quantified in the game of mafia. the main one being voting patterns. i believe analyzing voting patterns to be one of the purest forms of scum hunting. you all may think i am dumb, or a newb, for my presentation of my findings, but one of the main reasons i post is to spur discussion. it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

call it what you will, but fixijj is one of the few who seems to have been paying attention to what has been going on around the central arguments of this game. kudos to him. my stance on voting has been consistent from my first mention of it. unvote.

A gambit? Seriously? Because your opinion about voting patterns is in no way vindicated or anything by your professed "gambit". What the hell did your vote achieve in terms of advancing your claimed position?

I cannot see the point of any such gambit, and ,unless there is one, this really does look like you are just trying to shrug off accountability for the vote.

You know what I think, and don't bother calling this subjective, because it isn't: You've been pushing a BS case (yes, a case) against me (and Spyrex, to a lesser extent) for the past few pages. You've been shot down in flames and haven't convinced anybody and are now under fire yourself. In that context, you backflip and claim the whole thing was an enormous gambit.

I think Spyrex put it excellently:

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

For spurring discussion?

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

No I didn't.

I said that the ABSENCE of a vote by you didn't in any way excuse your accoutantability. I was even explicit that this in no way precludes voting patterns as relevant:

No, I am not saying that. My position is this:

A person is fully accountable for their reasons whether or not they vote. Thus, the mere fact you voted doesn't in any way excuse craplogic.

The above is in no way inconsistent with voting patterns being relevant.

You are misrepresenting me completely here, and that quote is solid proof of that.

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

This makes no sense. Nobody challenged that voting pattterns were relevant.

short answer, yes. you have facts which you believe prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

See, you and I are using subjective in differnet senses. You are treating any opinion as subjective. It is, in the colloquial sense of the term. The "subjective" I have attacked and labelled scummy is a special type. Thus, every time you have smugly claimed "vollkan is subjective", you aren't actually in any way indicating any scumminess or inconssitency on my own part.

Weakness does indicate scumminess, because scum are inherently more likely to push unreasonable cases, driven by opportunism and self-interest.

[Ectomancer]

everyone runs gambits. i wanted to see reactions.

I DID NOT PUT HIM AT L-1

. that was mykonian. i wanted to make the point that my voting pattern should be relevant. the fact i didn't vote for you should be relevant in that i listed you as one of my top suspects at that point in the game which i had completed reading. i didn't come in half cocked gunning for your lynch without all the facts, i merely found it interesting that someone on my list was calling for a deadline.

Hrmm.

If your placing a vote on Vollkan was a gambit, I think you misunderstand the term gambit. Do you mean you applied a pressure vote?
You tried to put him at L-1 if I'm following events correctly. The only reason your statement is true isn't because you didn't

try

, but because your vote was not counted by the mod due to no previous unvote. I thought

above

you were trying to say your vote was a gambit, but in the same breath you didn't put him at L-1? Wait,..what?

[SpyreX]

Well, Ecto, you see it makes perfect sense..

Wait, nope.

At least I can explain how that gambit works...

Wait, nope.

Well, damn.

[Rage]

I think I should clarify these latest votes. Vollkan had 4 votes (orangepenguin, mrfixij, ortolan, springlullaby) and ortolan unvoted, which I missed. Vollkan then had two votes added to him (don_johnson and mykonian, in that order). By missing ortolan's unvote, I was under the impression that Vollkan had been lynched. Mykonian then pointed out that ortolan had unvoted, which was before either Don_johnson or Mykonian voted, making Vollkan truly at L-1.

Sorry for the confusion.

[vollkan]

Let's see,

1) His gambit hasn't proven that voting patterns are relevant; and
2) I never even challenged his claim that voting patterns were relevant. What I challenged was that the lack of a vote somehow weakens accountability for reasons.

So, all in all, the "gambit" makes absolutely no sense. (And yes, DJ, that is my opinion. It is not "subjective" in the bad sense, though, because I backed it up with reasons - see points 1) and 2) nicely laid out above).

His actions do, however, make perfect sense as an attempt by desperate scum to leap off of a sinking hulk of a ship.

[vollkan]

Another thing now that I think of it - in addition to "cherrypicking", "strawmanning" and "subjective", we now have DJ misusing another one of the terms that I brought into this game: "gambit".

Following the above, it makes no sense as a "gambit", but it would make sense for scum-DJ to call it a "gambit", given that I previously showed sensitivity to Ecto's gambit and, moreover, because it would prevent me from attacking him without looking hypocritical unless I voiced the attack carefully.

Let me stress that this post is not presuming that that is what he did, but I cannot see any sensible pro-town basis for the gambit he claims to have employed, and I am merely trying to work out the scum motivations. (I say this because I just

know

that there at least three of you who would leap on me if it even appeared that I wasn't considering alternatives)

[don_johnson]

i did not put him at L-1, or try to. i noticed that he had been unvoted. this doesn't change the fact that i think he is the best lynch for today but iw will have to adress that later as i am off to work. however, accusing me of putting him at L-1 or trying to sneak in a lynch is ridiculous.

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

I didn't demand continual reposting.

What I did was simple: I wanted to force you to give evidence for your assertion of cherrypicking so I first forced you to identify a post. Then I demanded you explain where in that post. It's not forcing you to re-explain yourself; it's just forcing you to become more specific.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it seems to me.

the most sensible thing you've posted yet. read this out loud. it makes no sense.

[vollkan]

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

1) Yes, you misused the term. A feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable, and now you've only sunk deeper.
2) You vote proved no point (it in no way established that voting patterns were relevant), nor was it necessary for you to prove said point (I accepted from the outset that voting patterns were relevant)
3) We aren't arguing "semantics" (nice try to, as Mykonian would say, put your accusers on the defensive). You tried to defend yourself by labelling your vote as a "gambit", which it was not. It's not "semantics" for people to attack you for defending yourself by lying about the nature of your actions.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

You've ignored me completely. I wanted you to back up your accusation, and you pulled out the hackneyed example of that paragraph where I addressed the two sentences. I'm now going to go over that paragraph in detail to show why I didn't cherrypick:
The sentences I addressed are in red font. Comments by me are in bold black.

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.

In those two sentences, you try and defend yourself by relying on two facts: That you admitted weakness and didn't vote. I challenged the relevance of both those facts

yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map

My not addressing this bit has no impact on my attack on the first two

, 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

Nor this; this cuts to the SPyrex point which is a separate matter

, 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.

This is the prejudice point

Quite simply, your paragraph contained a number of distinct ideas. My addressing the first two sentences in no way misrepresented you, nor have I ignored the other ideas or anything else that could possibly be labelled "cherrypicking". All I did was quote precisely the material I addressed. The rest wasn't quoted BECAUSE IT WASN'T RELEVANT.

[Ectomancer]

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

Ok, perhaps it is a pet peeve of mine, but words have meanings. There is quite a difference between a gambit and a pressure vote. In a game where preciseness of language is as important as it is here, I disagree that it is semantics, or unproductive. Clear communication is important.

Your vote was to prove a point, so did it? Stated simply, what was it? Please don't regurgitate the conversation with Vollkan. There's no need to defend yourself against him, this is for me. I don't need frills, just plain statements and I dont care what Vollkan has interpreted as your motives.

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

[SpyreX]

i did not put him at L-1, or try to. i noticed that he had been unvoted. this doesn't change the fact that i think he is the best lynch for today but iw will have to adress that later as i am off to work. however, accusing me of putting him at L-1 or trying to sneak in a lynch is ridiculous.

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

Since it can not be proven otherwise, I'll freely accept that you were not pushing to L-1.

However, the rationale you used to try and throw that vote on the wagon (your gambit, if you will) was absolute garbage. It is the slimiest vote on the wagon regardless of it appears there or not of the vote count.

Maybe? There's a huge difference, and labeling it as you did isn't just an "Ohh, thats my bad." kind of mistake. Laying a Gambit? Not inherently scummy. Placing a "pressure" vote on the largest growing bandwagon under the flimisest of reasons? Yea. Thats scummy. Real scummy.

Ohh, and trying to float this latest pile as "semantics" - scummy.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'm done with cordality, since you're scum and all. You, in fact, are the one thats "not getting it". Unless you now think that its a secret scum trio of Ecto, Volk and I AND the rest of the town is a bunch of lurker scums the fact is - no one gets what you're saying.

I beat my head against this same stupid wall before. You say you posted evidence - why not go ahead and post it again. Its not all that backbreaking to ctrl-c and ctrl-v after all (but wait, you're not ANYONES quote monkey right). It might, get this, make people look at what you are saying in a different light.

Sad thing is, you can't do it because its all bullshit. There's never been real evidence of any of this business thats been going on and you jumped on Volkan because it became really, really clear that as things progressed with me you were going to end up lynched. Which, if I have any say, you still are.

Ultimately this whole "they're making me post it over again" is stupid. Mostly, because if you were giving clear and concise answers to these very specific questions...and we kept asking you... then we would look all the scummier for it. Good thing that is never gonna happen.

the most sensible thing you've posted yet. read this out loud. it makes no sense.

Even when you're trying to insult me (I have to assume that first part is pure sarcasm) it doesn't make sense.

Allow me to, again, say what I said that makes "no sense".

You insinuated that, somehow, you have found scum in these voting patterns. Instead of..ohh.. discussing this you have opted to keep your mouth shut about it.

Why would you do that? Because, get this, you are scum hanging on a limb and the idea of information gathered on day one might buy you more time - who knows, maybe we'll get another round of the power-hammer hour and you can scoot on by another day.

So, lets be real clear: You are insinuating information you do not have because you are scum trying simply to survive.

That clear enough for you?

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

Ohh he's totally caught up - him and I went over that a bit ago. Just doesn't want to give any more "ideas" for some reason.

What could that reason be?

[mykonian]

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

I didn't "set you up". Saying I "set you up" presumes that I deliberately laid a trap and, thus, presumes I am scum. The believed thing was an expressed inconsistency in your own posts which I pointed out.

I indeed think you did that deliberately. The sentence use the word "feel", not think, know, etc. It was already weakened, and showed what my view, based on only my feelings, on you was. The word feel acts as a marker that the sentence given includes a very weak point.

You, however, first say that it is a big point. Not entirely changing my point, but only shifting it in strength (I don't dare to call it strawmanning anymore). Then, after a few posts arguing you say triomphant: That big point in his post is based on almost nothing, therefore myk must be scum!

vote don_johnson

No cases, twice attacked on that, and now he tries the scum trick of telling us all it was a gambit. Yeehaa.

[don_johnson]

Your vote was to prove a point, so did it? Stated simply, what was it? Please don't regurgitate the conversation with Vollkan.

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

yes, caught up. still trying to sift through a ton of information. my vote

was

to prove a point. the point was that

my

voting pattern should be as relevant as anyone elses. THAT VOTING PATTERNS ARE RELEVANT. they are actually some of the ONLY concrete evidence we leave behind as our posts are subject to much more opinion and conjecture.

i was condemned for bringing a case against spyrex. why? because it was weak and i could not entirely explain my reasoning in terms that spyrex and volkan found acceptable. i found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting. i disagreed. in your own experience with him you found it extremely frustrating to get information out of him. i have not once said that i shouldn't be held accountable for a weak case. my point with the voting is that there were other facts in my argument with spyrex that were systematically avoided and decreed as irrelevant.

volkan further pushed that point on me when i brought it up in my defense, so i felt inclined to see how he would feel if i voted for him. in his subsequent reaction i feel i really got a handle on what i have been referring to as his "circular logic". i am not the best talker in this group and do not present my thoughts in a way he finds acceptable, but when i have approached him with evidence, it is summarily dismissed. maybe i'm not using terms correctly, but it doesn't matter how i explain it, volkan and spyrex think i am scum and therefore interpret everything i do as scummy even when its not. there is one

major

fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

how can someone so immersed in mafia theory ignore this fact? you can say you

think

dj is scum, but to say a hundred percent, based on the fact that he presented one weak case in the face of a deadline? it is illogical. i am accused of backpedaling, but how else is one to react under such an onslaught of insults and dismissal of evidence. heres my take right now:

best lynch: volkan/spyrex

because scum volkan=scum spyrex and town volkan=town spyrex. if you haven't seen the intense buddying up and hand holding going on between these two then you are not paying any attention. i put volkan ahead of spyrex because i

believe

him to be scummier due to his circular logic, evidence denial, and scummy behavior(the misplaced post is at the top of my list. i don't buy it.)

how do i find the best lynch, i look for scum, but expect to find town, because the odds say we will lynch a townie day 1, so we better damn well sure make it a townie whose going to cough up some information.

sure, scum dj would be agreat lynch. but what does town dj leave behind having been lynched for nothing more than weak play? and what kind of night kill strategies does that open up for mafia to further confuse us?

personally, mykonians erratic voting of the last six pages puts him at the top of my scumlist. however, the odds say he's town and lynching town mykonian does us no good as it also opens up various night strategies to pit town against town. plus i need to read more of him to discern some of his reasoning behind his votes, as his reasoning should be relevant as well.

spring lullaby is not here to defend herself, and though that shouldn't give her a reprieve, the fact that my interaction has been mainly with three or four players, i have to make the best calls i can, and right now i read her as a neutral tell. i don't find her reasoning as scummy as others do.

fixijj is screaming town, op and ortolan are claimed masons, who by (i believe) spyrex's math can be lynched on day three if our hunting reveals no scum in order to confirm them safely. TDC seems to have fallen off the map and has become a neutral read to me.

scum ecto would be a good lynch, but again, town ecto leaves us much less(in my opinion) than town volkan.

i know who i am and i know i'm not the best lynch. so i have to decide from that standpoint, and from where i'm at, volkan leaves us the most to work with.

vote: volkan

these findings are based on a combination of my "gut" feelings about everyone here and what i feel to be relevant evidence. it is all subjective. i contend that day 1 is entirely wifom and that our best course of action is a mathematical lynch based on our best suspicions. spyrex has his and i have mine.

[don_johnson]

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.

this entire paragraph was presented as evidence and it is all connected. you chose to split it up and respond to only the first two sentences. they were not the only two sentences written here in my defense.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it seems to me.

read this out loud the way it is written. it makes no sense. its like saying "so you brought your suspicions of me out in the open because you thought i was calling for a premature deadline? of course you did, because you're scum."

i'm not making fun of you. i'm pointing out that your logic is seriously flawed, just like your denial that my not voting for you is unacceptable as evidence of my true intentions.

[TDC]

Not much time.
How would vollkan coming up town imply SpyreX must be town, too?

You've said you found scum through voting patterns. Who is that? vollkan? Why did you ever unvote him then?

[don_johnson]

i believe, and stress the word believe, that volkan and spyrex are pretty much connected at the hip. in my book, volkan coming up town would clear spyrex. it is my subjective opinion based on their play. i would be pretty surprised if others felt differently.

i believe volkan scummy because of his play. spyrex had a vested interest in defending himself from my accusations. volkan stepped in, asked for evidence and still denies that the evidence was supplied. i unvoted to bring him down from L-2. call it a show of good faith. his obstinate desire not to validate my voting confirmed my opinion of him and i have decided to put my vote where it will stay.

what i initially said was that i believe scum had exposed themselves through voting, referring to mykonian. fixijj posted his suspicion. in my mind this justified my whole "voting pattern" theory and i was glad to see that someone else was paying attention to what was going on around the big show. i plan on doing more research of everyones voting patterns, but i feel mykonian has been the most noticeable. in fact, if you read back you will see how i am extremely puzzled by his "pressure vote" on a claimed and corroborated mason. though i do feel strongly about this, i stressed above that the odds are against myk being scum, so i have to figure that into my vote. also, the major flaw in my theory is that evryone puts as much stock into voting as i do. mykonian might be a flagrant voter for all i know. which is why i'm at :

]

these findings are based on a combination of my "gut" feelings about everyone here and what i feel to be relevant evidence. it is all subjective. i contend that day 1 is entirely wifom and that our best course of action is a mathematical lynch based on our best suspicions. spyrex has his and i have mine.

[SpyreX]

read this out loud the way it is written. it makes no sense. its like saying "so you brought your suspicions of me out in the open because you thought i was calling for a premature deadline? of course you did, because you're scum."

Its like saying that..except its not one bit.

God, I even made it clearer.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

Get it?

And if your mystical evidence is that Volk and I tend to move votes together... maybe, get this, its because we've been seeing the same things?

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

I never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

Which is it there, scumbalinia?
"I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations (yet when pressured I immediately change it to accusations because there is no evidence of questions) but, srsly guys, I had no intention of showing any of this because he did the SCUMMIEST THING of wanting a deadline in a stagnating game...which, maybe, in all of my discourse I brought up once because it was my secret super best move."

And later in this we move to the great:

how do i find the best lynch, i look for scum, but expect to find town, because the odds say we will lynch a townie day 1, so we better damn well sure make it a townie whose going to cough up some information.

Its for information guys! HONEST. I mean, how can I be held accountable when it was just for information? No way I could be scum asking for an information-based lynch day one, rite?

And, what information is that you'll find? That Volk and I have agreed with each other day 1. Yea, thats obvious (<3 Volk).

However, if you seriously believe that at this juncture that has one iota to do with our alignment... well, shit. That theory is so bad it wouldn't stand up under the light of a tiny lamp, much less the light of day.

WIFOM all you want, but if you thought as scum in a game with two scum I'd be stupid enough to obviously bff my scumpartner then wow.

On the other side, one of us being town doesn't mean anything to the other side being town... agreement != sharing an alignment. Now, personally, due to his play I think Volk is town - but thats because I understand what he's doing not simply because I agree with him.

So, considering how flawed this information is, what did I expect you to get from it? Well, one of us lynched, come up town and then tomorrow say exactly what I just did to try and save your ass again.

Not happening.

Also, its really sweet that you're not voting for the top of your scumlist. Since that makes a whole lot of sense.

Just to be clear, you have opted to "lynch for information" that gives no relevant information versus "lynching who you think is scum."

Yea. Thats even stupider when I lay it out in one line.

[don_johnson]

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

lie. prove this statement please.

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

I never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.


Which is it there, scumbalinia?
"I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations (yet when pressured I immediately change it to accusations because there is no evidence of questions) but, srsly guys, I had no intention of showing any of this because he did the SCUMMIEST THING of wanting a deadline in a stagnating game...which, maybe, in all of my discourse I brought up once because it was my secret super best move." [/quote]

although i must admit chuckling at "scumbelina", this is clearly a strawman. you have taken two quotes out of context and tried to tie them together. you are very smug, by the way. you seem intent on the fact that my teeny tiny brain is incapable of having more than one thought. way to go sherlock.

[quote="spyrex]However, if you seriously believe that at this juncture that has one iota to do with our alignment... well, shit. That theory is so bad it wouldn't stand up under the light of a tiny lamp, much less the light of day.[/quote]

why? it is interesting how you simply dismiss the argument here without so much as a shred of evidence.

Just to be clear, you have opted to "lynch for information" that gives no relevant information versus "lynching who you think is scum."

Yea.

Thats even stupider when I lay it out in one line

.

that is even more stupid when i lay it out in one line.

"stupider" is, well, not really a word. i am opting for who i think is the best lynch with the given information. you are hellbent on a lynch based on your "gut".

Tags fixed.

[don_johnson]

mod can you fix my tags, please. and merry xmas!

[SpyreX]

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

After rereading I guess you are right. There is absolutely no mention of evidence. It simply is: scum have outed themselves via voting patterns.

WOAH MY BAD THATS WAY BETTER.

Considering the patterns have no end result yet AND you (of course) haven't defined who was scum based on the patterns (and also who was town) I was putting way too much faith in there being evidence, even bad evidence.

Instead its a statement with no backing that, by nature of the game, is going to probably be true. Good catch.

As for absolutes? I wouldn't have asked you questions if I thought you were absolutely scum. Its just every step of the way you've reaffirmed it so I think you are the lynch.

The only other absolute is Volkan is awesome - he may be scum (see I dont know that yet) but either way he's awesome this game.

although i must admit chuckling at "scumbelina", this is clearly a strawman. you have taken two quotes out of context and tried to tie them together. you are very smug, by the way. you seem intent on the fact that my teeny tiny brain is incapable of having more than one thought. way to go sherlock.

Show the strawman. Show how the context of those two statements in the same post is strawmanning them.

You went: I wanted to present that SpyreX was being dodgy with both questions and accusations.

IN THE SAME BREATH:

You went: My REASON for posting was that he was asking for a deadline.

Both of those imply a reason for said activity. Which is it? How are they linked?

As you just said I was "trying to tie them together" you have implied they are not linked - if two sets of reasons for the initial activity are not linked.. then see my initial statement.

why? it is interesting how you simply dismiss the argument here without so much as a shred of evidence.

Extra points on omitting the entire section where I explain why assuming that because Volkan and I agree on day one we share an alignment (especially that of town, ffs) is a very, very bad play.

that is even more stupid when i lay it out in one line. "stupider" is, well, not really a word. i am opting for who i think is the best lynch with the given information. you are hellbent on a lynch based on your "gut".

Ohh ICE BURN. Nice ad hom...and this, my good scum, would be a "semantic" argument. Just thought I'd throw that tip out there.

You have opted for "lynching for information" versus "lynching who is your top suspect."

The "information" you would get is absolutely worthless.

The only way it would be useful is if Volk was scum... but then, why not just lynch your top suspect.

I am hellbent on a lynch of someone I think is scum, yes. This is not a "gut" call. This is based on every shred of your play and the multiple things you've done that are scummy.

I guess I did miss one more absolute. On that chance I am actually wrong, at this point I absolutely wouldn't shed a tear due to your play.

[Ectomancer]

Don, if you could pull yourself away from Spyrex for a moment, I believe both myself and TDC have asked questions.

[don_johnson]

yes, ecto, i have answered both of your questions. please see my posts above. its very difficult not to address spyrex. if you notice, he was just caught in a lie and simply dismissed it. i think he was the one who originally proposed the "lynch all liars" theory, so i am interested to see where that goes. 762 and 765 are my post numbers where i respond to your questions..

spyrex: you combined two quotes from different posts and make it look as though they were posted together. that is strawmanning as it misrepresents what i said and entirely removes them from the context in which they were originally stated. let me put it simply:

i posted my thoughts on your playstyle in order to counter your move of asking for a deadline.

changing:

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

to:

I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations

so how bout that lie? by your own logic that makes you a good lynch. is it possible that you just misread? because i was never given the luxury of such an excuse.
is strawmanning. plain and simple.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: don't know how that happened, but underneath the quote should read

is strawmanning. plain and simple.


so how bout that lie? by your own logic that makes you a good lynch. is it possible that you just misread? because i was never given the luxury of such an excuse.

[SpyreX]

The lie?

When I thought you had evidence to back your claim of information?

That one?

Yep, caught me. You never had evidence. My bad in assuming you did instead of waisting time.

Of course you'll paint my assuming you had evidence = all of the bullshit you've pulled with me, thats fine though.

Ohh, and BTW - both quotes I made were from in 762. Not from different posts.

Or are you talking about my paraphrasing the quotes I posted from 762 in explaining why I see a problem with them as me "strawmanning you".

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise, I have no clue what you are actually trying to say.

[Ectomancer]

Your vote was to prove a point, so did it? Stated simply, what was it? Please don't regurgitate the conversation with Vollkan.

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

yes, caught up. still trying to sift through a ton of information. my vote

was

to prove a point. the point was that

my

voting pattern should be as relevant as anyone elses. THAT VOTING PATTERNS ARE RELEVANT. they are actually some of the ONLY concrete evidence we leave behind as our posts are subject to much more opinion and conjecture.

Ok, this is still not showing

how

you proved your point. Did you vote only to prove a point? Specifically, what about you voting for Vollkan shows that voting patterns are relevant? I'm not getting this. Do you think Vollkan is town and your vote on him was scummy...or...what? I understand that you are going on and on about voting patterns being relevant, yeah yeah, we get that, please go on. How do you apply that specifically to what you did, and where do I see your successful application of it?