Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[GIEFF]

/confirm

springlullaby, militant, and Dourgrim are all obvscum by this point

[GIEFF]

Vote:GIEFF

For accusations in the pregame.

Technically, it was after I confirmed, and therefore no longer the pre-game. Excellent chainsaw defense, though.

[GIEFF]

The joke is on you; my blood-sugar is low.

[GIEFF]

I knew that installing the plush leather seats and big-screen TV in my wagon was a poor choice. It is by far the coolest wagon on my entire block.

[GIEFF]

ting, how serious was your vote for Panzerjager? Complete joke? Half-serious, half-joke? Completely serious?


For those who are still unclear: I picked three random names and said they were "obvscum" as a joke, and as a way to start discussion. I did not start the game with any information about who is and isn't scum.


So, to summarize your reasoning, Dourgrim:

• I haven't voted yet.
  
• I already had votes on me.
  
• I called you obvscum in pre-game.

Am I missing anything?

[GIEFF]

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

I agree that lynching a SK is better than lynching a mafia. But why do you think Panzer is the most likely to be SK?

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.


--------------------------

Actually, it's because you posted and hadn't voted yet. It made you look like you were trying to avoid being accused of lurking without actually doing anything, and the posts you did make had no useful content in them. That made you a better candidate for a bandwagon than anyone else at the time, since I hadn't spotted anything else all that suspicious when I made that post.

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS based on my obviously-joking "obvscum," but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Let's go over them.

• I hadn't voted yet.
  I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.
  
  None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?
  
  I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

• I already had two votes on me.
  How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting."

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke? It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

Vote: Dourgrim

[GIEFF]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

So I take it your above post is a "yes" to Goatrevolt's question, mykonian?

[GIEFF]

I will, however, accept responsibility for not doing my research and reading up on the games you've played in the past to find voting patterns (or lack thereof).

That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

I've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for vote and lurker analysis later.

What additional knowledge would be gained if you looked back a few days down the road and saw that I had random-voted for, say, springlullaby? Do you still think that I am just posting to avoid accusations of lurking?

Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.

It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.

I would have thought this would be obvious by now: I was comfortable with my vote because of the first two bulleted points, and I had agreed that the "obvscum" thing was a joke... which you seem to deny and confirm in the same breath.

And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.

I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke

You have done so ONCE before your latest post, and you did not do so until you were questioned about it by Goatrevolt.

• Post 33: You don't say you think it's a joke.

  And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

• post 37: You say that there are other explanations; you don't say that you think they are true. In fact, you call mykonian's logic, which if serious would assume my post was NOT a joke, "valid."

  Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...

• post 45: The first time you say you think it was a joke

  Goatrevolt wrote:
  Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

  Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.

Did I miss something? You gave three reasons originally. When called out on the third of them, you claimed it was a joke, and that we should have realized it was a joke, and you obviously were just using your other two reasons. Now that your second reason (convenient band-wagon) no longer applies (I don't have two other votes on me anymore, and another player has MORE votes than I do), you say you are still happy with your vote.

And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.


----------------

it is a no, of course. It was a random vote, and it is a random vote. It had the nice thing that it was the second vote on a person, maybe someone was so nice to put a third one on. (yes, you are a nice person dourgrim Smile)

If you think Dourgrim is a "nice person," why don't you think MacavityLock is? He put the third vote on Panzer, for reasons I don't find satisfactory.

[GIEFF]

It seems to me that some of this talk about whether or not we have an SK to worry about is premature and probably counter productive to our efforts against the one threat of which we are certain, the mafia.

Yes, exactly. In post 43, Panzer was the one to start bringing up an SK as a real threat.

I don't know if you're misreading post 43 on purpose or on accident, but you're misreading it.

[GIEFF]

WARNING: WALL O' TEXT BELOW

Cliff notes:

1. MacavityLock is misinterpreting Panzer's post 43
2. I still don't buy Dourgrim's reasons for voting for me
3. A summary of the activity in this game (read this if nothing else)

-----------------------
1.

Yes, exactly. In post 43, Panzer was the one to start bringing up an SK as a real threat.

Post 43 was in response to Dourgrim's post, which I'll quote below.

Actually, Panzer, mykonian's logic is sound, if a bit oddly stated. He says that GIEFF has information the rest of us don't (i.e. implying a role that isn't Townie) and is also going after mafia. Ergo, GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia, and no one pro-Town would out themselves as a Cop or Doc or any sort of useful power role before the game even starts, ergo he must be the SK.

Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...

And here is post 43:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Panzer wasn't warning the town about the SK; he was correcting Dourgrim's post about Mykonian's post, and explaining what he thought Mykonian really meant.

This is all difficult to talk about because it's hard to differentiate a poster's opinion from their explanation of Mykonian's post. I do find it fishy that Panzer assumes that I am town, though; the only people that know that are myself and the mafia.


------------------
2.

I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.

I didn't even notice that I had changed your name to Dourscum for a couple of the quotes. Sorry about that - it wasn't intentional. I wasn't quoting directly, I was just typing your name. Freud at work, I guess.

I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.

They have not amounted to this in the slightest; I say that to demonstrate that your logic is faulty. If your reasons for voting me were really what you said they were, I would not be your only target, as I am not the only person who meets your criteria.

I am not defending myself so much as I am attacking your initial reasons for voting me. My main weapon for finding scum is finding faulty reasoning behind votes. Townies actually use logic to figure out who the scum are, but because scum already know, they simply fake logic, as it isn't necessary.

It is easiest to attack logic for votes on myself than votes on others because a) I know that I am town (and attacking the logic for a vote on scum is very anti-town), and b) I don't accidentally take the focus off of another player (If I pre-emptively attack the logic behind an attack on another player, we may miss out on the attackee's response).

I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?

What sort of serious conversation do you expect to have in the pre-game? In the first 10 posts? Your method is the most valid, and similar to the way I play the game. But you can't start with ultra-serious mega-analysis right off the bat; there is nothing to build on. This is an easy point to realize, and one on which I think we are in agreement. It's just a matter of the phase of the game in which the posts occur.

Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).

Did you misinterpret my accusation of "obvscum" in the pre-game? Or talking about the sugar levels of my blood or the big-screen TV's in my wagon? Do you think these posts are more or less likely to be misinterpreted than presenting three reasons for a vote, getting called on one of them, and retroactively claiming it was a joke, but the rest of your post was not?

Joke posts are only confusing when you mix them in with serious posts, as you claim to have done in your initial vote for me.

Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.

I agree completely that a lack of a meaningful vote along with meaningful analysis is an advantage for scum later. We think very similarly in this regard. But we're talking about meaningless votes and meaningless posts, and I just don't see how a meaningless vote is valuable to look back at in later days.

But because two players have said this, could one of you link me to a game where you experienced this happening? If I could see a case where it actually helps the town, maybe I'll random-vote in my future games.

As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken.

That isn't my style of argument - that was a mistake.

Having said all of that, I would like to unvote: GIEFF for the moment. I'm going to reread the thread with a fresh pair of eyes today and see what I see, and I'll weigh in on the situation later today.

I read this as "As my reasons for voting GIEFF were shown to be faulty and baseless, I've decided to unvote rather than continue to try to defend myself."

You won't get off that easily. It's not the fact you were voting me that bothered me, but the fact that you were using poor logic to do so. Here is your original post voting for me.

We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

Early pressure is understandable, and I actually took this as somewhat of a joke post. But you said later on that you were happy with this vote, even as your original reasons for voting eroded, and as you failed to present new ones.

In this light, your unvote looks like appeasement designed to stop me from questioning your reasoning any further.


-------------------------
3.


Here is a summary of the players who haven't contributed as much to the game as the rest of us have. I know the game hasn't been going for that long, but I think this information will be useful.

Beyond_Birthday

: One serious post (72), no serious votes. No serious scumhunting attempts. This is scummy.

MacavityLock

: Three serious posts (47, 75, and 81).

47 is more information than analysis, and the logic for it is bad, as I allude to at the beginning of this post. Most of posts 75 and 81 are Mac defending himself. Other than the Panzer-SK thing (which I think is bogus), Mac has provided no original scumhunting.

militant

: No serious posts, no serious votes. [joke]Plus, I totally nailed him as scum with my pre-game epiphany.[/joke]

Mykonian

: No serious posts that were not defending himself from others' accusations. No seroius votes. No scumhunting. This is very scummy, as the excuse of inactivity doesn't apply to explain the lack of pro-town contribution.

springlullaby

: No serious posts, no serious votes. [joke]Plus, I totally nailed her as scum with my pre-game epiphany.[/joke]

subgenius

: One serious post (74), no serious votes. He did do a spot of scumhunting in this post, so I don't think his behavior should be classified as scummy; just not quite as active as the rest of us.

ting =)

: One serious post (73), no serious votes. As with subgenius, there was some scumhunting in this post.



To summarize:

MIA

:

militant

and

springlullaby

. militant has posted just once elsewhere, and springlullaby not at all, so I think this is more inactivity than actively avoiding the game.

Active lurkers

(posting but no attempts at scumhunting):

Beyond_Birthday

,

MacavityLock

,

Mykonian

Light contributors

:

subgenius

,

ting =)

I think the Active Lurker group is the scummiest, but all the above players should pick up their activity a bit in the coming days, or risk my swift and furious wrath.

[GIEFF]

Here are the results of the voting history script I run. If this is just too much clutter or not helpful, let me know and I won't do it again. I usually run it every few pages in my games, or at critical decision points.

By Chronology

:

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 19

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF
Post 20

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager
Post 24

mykonian

vote GIEFF
Post 25

militant

Vote ting =)
Post 26

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock
Post 27

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 28

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager
Post 29

subgenius

vote:Militant
Post 31

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian
Post 33

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 36

Panzerjager

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian
Post 38

ting =)

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager
Post 39

springlullaby

Vote subgenius
Post 40

Dourgrim

FoS: springlullaby
Post 44

Panzerjager

FoS:Ting
Post 46

dejkha

FoS: Dourgrim
Post 47

MacavityLock

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer
Post 54

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 55

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF
Post 71

Beyond_Birthday

Unvotes
Post 77

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Post 80

Dourgrim

unvote: GIEFF

By Character

:

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF Post 19
Unvote, Vote:Mykonian Post 36
FoS:Ting Post 44

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager Post 20
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock Post 77

mykonian

vote GIEFF Post 24
unvote, vote GIEFF Post 55

militant

Vote ting =) Post 25

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock Post 26
unvote. Vote:Panzerjager Post 38

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim Post 27
Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer Post 47

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager Post 28
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 33
FoS: springlullaby Post 40
unvote: GIEFF Post 80

subgenius

vote:Militant Post 29

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian Post 31
Unvotes Post 71

springlullaby

Vote subgenius Post 39

dejkha

FoS: Dourgrim Post 46

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim Post 54

[GIEFF]

It's only been 36 hours, which is why I think active lurking is scummier than just not posting. If you're posting but not providing any content, then it looks like you're posting just to avoid suspicion, as opposed to posting to help the town.

[GIEFF]

It's only been 36 hours, which is why I think active lurking is scummier than just not posting. If you're posting but not providing any content, then it looks like you're posting just to avoid suspicion, as opposed to posting to help the town.

Is it just me, or does this sound just like what I was originally saying when I voted for GIEFF way back when?

The difference is that you said it during the random/joke-vote stage when there had been no other meaningful content. But other than that, yes, very similar.

[GIEFF]

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way he said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

Revisionist history. Here is what you said:

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

Are you claiming that this post by you was a joke? It sure looked serious to me.

[GIEFF]

No That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I know his tried to be funny but he let loose a slip.

If you think it's a joke post, then why did you assume he didn't want to lynch mafia?

I agree that the first person to mention anything about a serial killer is more likely to actually be the serial killer, but only marginally so.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

This is another post by you that seems to indicate you took mykonian's vote seriously. If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

[GIEFF]

To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts

I wasn't trying to be condescending; sorry if it came off that way.

...nor am I fond of his "accidental" spin-doctoring

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.

However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?

This is @mykonian, not me. I know you and I both know that, Dourgrim, just making sure everyone else does, too. I agree that it's an odd thing to say.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to FoS: mykonian and vote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.

You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.

--------------------------------

How? Unless he is part of the mafia, no one can know the whole scum right now.

How what? How are you lying?

You said you knew mykonian's post was a joke, yet your subsequent reactions to it prove beyond a doubt that you took it seriously.

FOS Panzerjager

[GIEFF]

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote

Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie. Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

[GIEFF]

It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

I agree completely. Vote from your got all you want, but if you can't convince others that your reasoning is sound, I don't see how you can expect to ever get enough votes for a lynch.

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

I disagree with this post, but want to let djehka respond before I say why.

[GIEFF]

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

[GIEFF]

Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

[GIEFF]

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way. I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

At the very least, he mentioned SK first thusly could be SK.

I'm like Dourgrim, I don't "do" joke post or acknowledge them.

I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.

If you knew he meant for it to be a joke, shouldn't you also know that he didn't really think I was scum? That's what a joke is; you say something because it's funny, not because you think it's true. It also doesn't make sense to "slip" and put pressure on somebody because they are hunting mafia.

You say mykonian brought up the SK thing first, which is true, but YOU are the one who keeps trying to push the "mykonian is SK" theory.

Do you really believe that a random joke-vote on the first page was meant to get me to claim?


Please do explain your playstyle.

[GIEFF]

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

It may be your prerogative to play as you wish, but it is NOT your prerogative to tell other players they can't attack people for voting you for what seems to be bad logic.

I don't think accusing someone of being "too eager" is piss-poor at all, nor do I think it's scummy. If somebody tries to pin a case on somebody based on no substance at all (as I believe Panzer did to myko), then that really is being "too eager" and that poster should be called on it. Why do you think it's piss-poor play/scummy?

[GIEFF]

mykonian, I agree it makes little sense to try to label attacks and defenses as deflection this early in the game. Yes, two players "could be" scum, and therefore their interactions "could be" deflection or bussing, but without any other evidence, that's an arbitrary claim that could be made about any two people int eh game.

What I don't understand, mykonian, is your FoS of me. It's because I voted for a contradiction? Are you referring to my vote of Panzer or my vote of Dourgrim? And what contradiction are you talking about?

--------

I echo ting's thoughts about the theory discussion. While it started off in actual game-related discussion, it's gone way past that, and is now just making it harder to read back.

--------

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

If you really are town, what you should do is stop lying about your reasons for voting people, and yes, as you said, start scumhunting. If you do end up getting lynched today (which is by no means probable at this point), the more people you attack and interact with, the better for the town, as we can read back later on how people interacted with you.

I think you are scum because you lied about the way in which you interpreted mykonian's post. Are you still happy with your vote of mykonian? Why or why not?

----------

2. Put general considerations aside and examine the time at which djekha made that accusation at Dourgrim. Do you think Dourgrim's actions at the time qualify as 'too eager'? Do you think it was a justified attack on djekha's part?

Yes, I think they qualify as too eager. Yes, I think it was a justified attack.

Scumhunting and dragging the game out of the random-voting stage is good. Doing it for ticky-tack reasons is bad, especially when those reasons are inconsistently applied.

--------

I agree that Dourgrim's "oldie" card was a tad scummy, but not much. Unfortunately, the nature of this games means all statements that could be seen as buddying, compliments, or the like have to be viewed as potential scum-tricks. There is no need to apologize, Dourgrim.

[GIEFF]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

[GIEFF]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.

But Panzer's vote wasn't random. Of course the lie isn't intentional; that's a silly thing to say. That's the whole point.

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

[GIEFF]

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it. As I said in post 113:

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell. There is no reason for a townie to lie about the reasons for a vote, and to do so reveals the fact that the logic presented at the time of a vote isn't the actual reason for the vote.

[GIEFF]

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

They are not contradictory. The main tool I look for to find scum is clues that would indicate a person doesn't really buy their own reasons for voting. Of course it isn't a "provable" theory. Nothing in this game is provable. If somebody says something he believes is true, it is not a lie even if it really is untrue. But that's not what Panzer did. Panzer lied.

I am not going to go into a list of clues that may indicate someone is voting for reasons other than the ones given, as that would just be telling the scum how to make themselves look townie to me. But here are two clues that I have used previously in this thread.

• Lying about reasoning. This is a huge scumtell, as it indicates the player is just faking reasoning. If you arrived at suspicion naturally, you should be able to explain why. If you STARTED at suspicion and then tried to fill in the blanks so another would believe that you arrive there due to actual logic and reasoning, you can slip up and get caught in mistakes. If Player X really finds Player Y scummy, there should be no reason for Player X to lie about the reasons behind that suspision.
• Applying reasoning inconsistently. If Player X votes Player Y for lurking, yet ignores the same behavior in Player Z, it begs the question "If lurking was the real reason for the vote, why didn't player X mention the same behavior in Player Z?" This is why I thought it was suspicious you focused on me (and on springlullaby) without mentioning or questioning any other number of players who exhibited similar behavior.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

I am not calling mykonian irrational, I am calling his defense irrational, for the points listed earlier in that post. I think Panzer is scummy, and when I see somebody go out of their way to defend Panzer in a manner I find illogical, I am going to point it out. I am not saying that because I am angry or any other emotion, and it's not meant to elicit that response in mykonian. If mykonian doesn't think his defense was irrational, I welcome him to respond to my points detailing why I do think it was irrational.

I just saw your long post, Birthday, and will respond in my next one.

[GIEFF]

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

Let's not. Why must you be extra careful? Are you attempting to say that town cannot make errors or that you are mafia, and shouldn't make errors. I am seeing minor connection of you with grim, under the assumption that you are mafia. However, maybe this is how you react to criticism.

I want to drop it because it's a mistake that serves no purpose but to distract the town from scumhunting. I am not saying anything about town or mafia making errors, although I do agree that slips of the nature of the one I made can be a good way to catch scum if it's a slip about knowing somebody's role. I made a mistake, it upset Dourgrim and caused him to react emotionally, and so I will be careful not to make it again.

--------

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.

Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.


-------

Also, I believe Panzer is at L-2 now. I don't want anybody to hammer and be able to claim it was an accident.

I agree that Mac's vote for Panzer is suspicious, and he never responded when I asked him about it in part 1 of my Post 82 Wall-o-text.

ting's vote for Panzer is a bit odd, too. When I asked if this vote was serious, ting responded in Post 73,

@GIEFF
It's as serious as you'd expect a vote on the second page to be.

Which leads me to believe it was more of a joke-vote than for serious reasons. Is that correct, ting? Do you feel the same way about Panzer as you did in post 73 when you wrote the above quote?

------

And another question, this one for springlullaby. You voted dejkha for calling Dourgrim "too eager." Why didn't you mention ting's vote for Panzer, which also looks like ting calling Panzer "too eager" in the random-vote stage? It looks like inconsistent reasoning to me.

[GIEFF]

GIEFF, I didn't lie. You asked me at two different times. I truly believe that had you asked me when I mad that post on Mykonian, I would have said I thought it was serious. You asked me a while later in which I had read other post and had time to assume it was a joke. I didn't lie, I didn't explain myself fully or correctly.

If you had said this originally, it would be easier to believe. It just seems to me that if you weren't really lying, your first response to my accusation would have been "I didn't lie" instead of waiting to say this until much later. I am glad you have at least admitted that you took his vote seriously at the time you voted, though. At what point did you realize it was a joke?

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies. Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby

Picking on townies

, eh? And how, may I ask, do you know she is picking on townies rather than scum? Which posters were you referring to?

[GIEFF]

2) I don't know if they are townies or not but its seems delibrate that she's going after Dejka and not Ting =)

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies.

You slipped. If you meant dejkha, you would have said "picking on dejkha." You just revealed that you know dejkha is town.

Do other agree that this is a big slip, or am I just tunneling here?

[GIEFF]

doesn't anybody here have the feeling that this is one big overreaction? This is going way too fast. I don't like fast wagons, esspecially not when they are early. Are you really in favor of a panzerlynch page 7? didn't think so...

Do you disagree that your defense of Panzer in post 143 was irrational? Instead of answering my questions and continuing the discussion, you decided to appeal to a broader audience.

mykonian, how likely did you think it was that Panzer would be lynched today before your latest post? And how likely do you think it is now?

[GIEFF]

I have seen more town lynches for "contradictions" and "lies". Scum wouldn't want to lie this way, town wouldn't. It is imperfect play in any case, but you make a scumtell out of it, and I think that is wrong.

Do you think Panzer calling dejkha a townie is a scumtell?

[GIEFF]

I'm an exetremely aggresive play and sometimes I get ahead of myself.

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

I don't see this aggression you're talking about. And your subsequent scumhunting is just parroting others' points:

I'm with Spring lullaby on the "Oldie card"

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies. Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby

Parroting my Post 157.


Panzer hasn't made a single original contribution to scumhunting other than his original vote for mykonian, even after saying that he would start to do so.


-------------------


mykonian:

You never answered my question in post 142, instead answering it with one of your own (which I did answer). I'll repeat my question.

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

And here is Panzer calling dejkha a townie, in Post 158.

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies.

Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby

[GIEFF]

You're missing the point, mykonian. Panzer said that springlullaby is "picking on townies" instead of "picking on dejkha." Do you think that is a scumtell?

And as for your first paragraph, I already answered it in my Post 144, which you continue to ignore.

[GIEFF]

we are talking around each other. What I'm also trying to say, and that should be the answer on post 144: why would panzer be so eager to lie in the half-random-voting-stage? Because I'm so obvious protown, that he must get rid of me? It makes no sense.

and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).

He already responded to it. Post 161

Panzer didn't lie in the half-random-voting stage. He lied later, but about his reasoning in the half-random-voting stage.

[GIEFF]

So why would panzer lie if it was just a random vote? Scum could easily walk away from it by saying it was only random with a joke. I know it is wifom, but why would Panzer lie? A lie as scum can only be a scumtell if it had use to scum, at least that is what I believe. This lie couldn't even confuse us. That's why I can't believe it is a scumtell.

I will quote it again.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Panzer was faking logic.

The lie wasn't meant to confuse the town, it was meant to convince the town that Panzer really thought you were scum, that he saw scummy behavior and acted on it, rather than voting for you for other reasons and trying to fabricate reasons he did not really believe to justify it.

I know it is wifom

I do, too.



And mykonian, if you don't like the Panzer lynch, how about doing some scumhunting to try to find a better one? All you've done so far is FOS'd dourgrim and myself, and it looks like that was mainly based on the fact we're voting for Panzer, right? In retrospect, all your "scumhunting" so far just looks like the chainsaw portion of your defense of Panzer.

I'm not sure if you're scum protecting a scumbuddy or scum protecting a townie to make yourself look innocent tomorrow, but I don't think a townie would be so sure of Panzer's alignment. If others are as sure as mykonian is that Panzer would be a bad lynch, please speak up now.

FoS mykonian

[GIEFF]

@Gieff, First of all the "slip" you mentioned is a semantics issue. I said townies simply because I didn't feel like spelling Dejka(sp?) because I don't like sifting through post just so I can spell a name right.

This issue is that this makes it seem like you know dejkha's role. It goes beyond semantics.

Also, I've been called out on my aggresiveness which is a great way to spark my interest in a game, I'm suddenly willing to play.

You weren't willing to play before?


Anything new to add, Panzer? You are still just parroting my point at the bottom of post 157.

[GIEFF]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

This is where Ting votes me for being too eager and overeacting.

There is no post where you jump on ting. Hence the question, Why did you jump on Dejkha and not Ting.

Because of the OMGUS I think is present in djekha's post. Did you miss that?

So you wouldn't classify ting's vote as "too eager" in the same way you did dejkha's? It's odd you bring up the one but not the other.


Note to self: resist the urge to make sarcastic notes to yourself in this game.

[GIEFF]

It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

Don't you think ting's vote could also be classified as calling Panzer "too eager" in the random vote stage?

[GIEFF]

It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

Don't you think ting's vote could also be classified as calling Panzer "too eager" in the random vote stage?

Yes I do. You classify as well for your vote on Dourgrim.

But as I already said, it wasn't the sole motive of my vote. I have answered thusly 2 times already. Are you deliberately missing the point?

I thought the "too eager" accusation was a large part of your case, as I still don't really understand what you mean about the OMGUS. If you say that "too-eager" accusations are "just plain scummy" but don't mention ting doing the same thing, then it looks like you are applying your criteria for scumminess inconsistently.

[GIEFF]

SL's argument against Dekhja, as I understand it, is that he voted for Dourgrim out of a sort of vicarious OMGUS.

Thanks, that makes more sense to me now.

Gieff, are you attempting to say that the too eager accusation is to be applied to Ting's case? I don't quite get your rationale.

Furthermore, I don't see how Ting's original post can really be seen as an accusation of Panzer being too eager. It is in the RV classification, right?

Yes, I am attempting to say that if springlullaby really believes dejkha was too eager, I think she should also believe ting was. She has said as much since, but it is still scummy to apply a scumtell inconsistently. I do understand that it is easier to notice posts about yourself than about others, which may explain why she focused on dejkha rather than ting, so the point is minor. And now that I better understand the rest of her case, her logic makes more sense to me.

---------------

@Dour.
I'm sorry if it annoyed you. Posting was the fastest way for me to save my notes at the time.

Sending yourself a private message would probably work just as well, but I think your thought processes are good to see anyway.

The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

This is a horrible misrepresentation of my case. I was voting for Panzer long before this slip, and for very different reasons. This is simply another straw on the camel's back.

GIEFF, why are you interpreting Panzer's backtracking as lying but not myko's? The circumstances between the two are relatively identical, with both of them calling their votes alternately serious then jokey and then retracting them.

I don't think myko ever called his vote anything but a joke, and I don't see him having lied. I find him scummy, but for different reasons. You even said yourself about myko:

@Panzer.
That's the thing, I didn't think it was a scum slip at all. It just seemed like a banter-y reply to GIEFF's banter at the time.

Are you now revising that opinion? Or are you referring to something else?

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's lack of a random vote till well into page 4.

This is another misrepresentation of what happened. The discussion may have started off about a random vote, but I continued it because Dourgrim's justifications for his vote of me were poor, one of which he later claimed was a joke, and another of which was shown to be inconsistently applied.

Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

I don't like this question. If I was not willing to follow the vote through to a lynch, then the reason for my vote would have been to pressure Dourgrim, to see how he and others react to the possibility of him getting lynched. If I say "this is just a pressure vote, I don't mean to carry this through to lynch" then that takes away all the pressure, making the vote meaningless. That being said, I would not have been comfortable carrying it through to a lynch at the time I voted, as it was so early in the game.

Beyond birthday and goatrevolt don't stick out to me, as either town or scum. The people on top did.

What does this mean?

-------------

And I'm not in any way sitting the fence. As I explained, I do think you are scummy but that doesn't mean I'm convinced you are scum. And as I have also explained, I think the wagon on you is sufficient as it is so I'm in no hurry to put you closer to a lynch.

springlullaby, are you still happy with your vote of dejkha? This post looks like you are trying to have it both ways; do you think Panzer is scum or not? If two people unvoted Panzer, would you vote him? Or is the sufficiency of the wagon not the only reason you aren't voting Panzer?

-----------------------

Goatrevolt, mykonian, and militant are the others not voting for Panzer. Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage. mykonian has not been suspicious of Panzer all game, and even called his early play "undoubtedly protown." Please let me know if I've mischaracterized your positions.

militant, what are your thoughts about Panzer? Or about anything else in this game?

You have made 3 posts so far; one confirm, one random vote, and one promise to post which was not fulfilled.

-----------

Panzer, I am still waiting for you to make an original point. You said a while ago now that you would try to shake your wagon by scumhunting, but you have failed to do so.

[GIEFF]

Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread.

I have gone into tremendous detail about Panzer. Please show me where myko did the same, or show me why you disagree with my reasons for suspecting Panzer.

I think myko is quite scummy, but I don't think he lied in the same manner Panzer did.

[GIEFF]

I never said you disagreed with my reasons for voting Panzer, and I am not attempting to misrepresent your position.

You are claiming that Panzer and myko behaved in a similar way; I don't agree. There are two explanations for this; either we disagree about what myko did, or we disagree about what Panzer did.

This is why I asked you to change my mind about one or the other. I made no claim about which one I expected you to do, but you will have to do one or the other if we are to reach common ground.


And I am not at all trying to prove that my perception is the only possible interpretation. I'm trying to convince others that I am correct, because I believe that I am. I've asked if others agree and asked them to speak up if they don't agree and to explain why, and I welcome dissent and discussion.

I've asked both you and ting to explain why you think myko's behavior was so similar to Panzer's, and I haven't received a response yet. I am still waiting for some detail there; if you are right, that's either another point against myko or possibly one fewer against Panzer.

[GIEFF]

Please show me where myko did the same,

or

show me why you disagree with my reasons for suspecting Panzer.

[GIEFF]

A = lied about the reasoning for a vote.

I think Panzer did A. I don't think myko did A.

We think Panzer and myko acted similarly.

So, logically, either myko did do A, or Panzer didn't do A. Whichever of these you think is the case, please present evidence to support your opinion.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

[GIEFF]

What's changed since your last post, Panzer? You FOS me now for things I've done a while ago. The only thing I see that is different is that Dourgrim said something very similar a few posts back.

The pattern of you only saying things once other people have already said them continues, even after I've called you out on it. I have yet to see any original scumhunting from you other than the myko thing, even after you said in post 130:

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

1. Post 131

   This looks remarkably like the 'the newbie card', or more in this instance an 'oldie card'. It amuses me but I can't say that I approve.

   Post 135

   I'm with Spring lullaby on the "Oldie card"

   
   
2. Post 157

   And another question, this one for springlullaby. You voted dejkha for calling Dourgrim "too eager." Why didn't you mention ting's vote for Panzer, which also looks like ting calling Panzer "too eager" in the random-vote stage? It looks like inconsistent reasoning to me.

   
   Post 158

   Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies. Unvote:

   Vote:Springlullaby

3. Post 216

   This post looks like you are trying to have it both ways; do you think Panzer is scum or not?

   Post 225

   Ironically in the same paragraph you tell me you're not Fence sitting you tell that you, indeed, are fence sitting.

   
   
4. Post 217

   When I posted above that I'm not entirely comfortable with the current wagon, it's because of one thing: the wagon was being aggressively led by GIEFF, who I had a bad feeling about from way back at that initial vote.

   Post 225

   @Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons.

Parroting the thoughts of others is not scumhunting; it is active lurking, and very scummy.

Also, read any of my games or ask a player who is prominent at this site and

What did you mean to put here? Any games in particular we should read? I'd be interested to know if you can point to a game where you exhibited similar parroting behavior as a confirmed townie.

[GIEFF]

Apparently 2 years of experiance under my belt here and I don't know that parrot people.

What do you mean by this?

You told us that you would start scumhunting; do you feel that parroting the cases others have made qualifies as scumhunting? Or are you saying that you don't think you are parroting others?

I did find another original point you made, which brings your total to two:

Post 44.

[GIEFF]

I also brought up Spring's fence sitting first.

It's true that you did in general, but not in the post I was talking about. You're right that your first accusation of fence-sitting is another original point, though. But it's somewhat irrelevant in that the reasoning you used

at the time

you voted for springlullaby was exactly what I had said in the previous post. You found another point, but this is only after you found a target based on another poster's reasoning.

And I mean that I'm not parroting. I'm agreeing, and you're tunneling in order to get me to claim. Also, you never answered my accusations in the post that I "parroted" from Dourgrim.

I'm not tunneling in order to get you to claim. I am applying pressure to you because I think you are scum. I don't want you to claim; you are only at L-3. I'll respond to your post now.

---------
My defense of your post:

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons. A supposed "lie" the intentions of my random vote, and me calling dejkha "confirmed town". Both of these honestly go into semantics. First of all, I used the word townie instead of spelling a specific players name. Oh Please, this isn't a slip. Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him slips were minor tells and simply told him I'd just be keeping my eye on him. Regardless of the debacle afterward, you're blowing an IGMEOY out of purportion in a way that is leading me to believe you are rolefishing scum. FoS:Gieff

I am not singling you out. I am focusing on you because I have found your play to be the scummiest so far. You were not truthful, and that is a fact. You finally did claim that you just forgot, but the fact remains that you said you knew it was a joke when it was clear that you did not.

The "townie" thing is extra. I see the point made by mykonina that it could have been a "nested" reference; i.e. in the universe where SL is scum, dejkha is town. But the fact mykonian brought it up instead of you makes both of you look scummy.

You may classify both as semantics, but I don't. The second may be, but that was not my reason for voting for you; it was just another thing I found. I think that misrepresenting your reasons for voting is EXTREMELY scummy, for reasons I've mentioned multiple times.

As for the parroting; it's not the fact that you are agreeing with others that tickles my scumdar, it's the fact that you are hardly doing anything else.

---------------------
My attack on your post:

A supposed "lie" the intentions of my

random vote

Really? Your random vote? After all we've been through about you lying, you continue to do so, and BLATANTLY. Do the below quotes look like somebody talking about a random vote?

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia.

I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

Random voting... for a huge scum slip?

EBWOP: Ting,

I'm propelling us out of Random Voting.

I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.

Propelling us out of random voting... by random voting?

I can accept this and my vote will stay on you until I find someone else scummier then you.

Random voting... because you find somebody scummy?


That wasn't a random vote. Stop lying.



Semantics again, but I think it is relevant:

@Gieff: I

truly

believe

Both of these

honestly

go into semantics

Why use these words? There is no need for them unless you are quite conscious about the need to tell the truth, which a townie should not be; it should come naturally.

Regardless of the debacle afterward, you're blowing an IGMEOY out of purportion in a way that is leading me to believe you are rolefishing scum.

It wasn't an IGMEOY, it was a VOTE, about which you said you were pretty sure it was a "huge scum slip." You are lying AGAIN. That was not just an IGMEOY, and it was not a minor thing, and when you say things like "huge scum slip" it looks pretty serious.

If I were rolefishing, I would be hopping from wagon to wagon until I found one that stuck, using others reasoning to make it look as though I am contributing. I am not rolefishing, I am scumhunting. And you are scum.

[GIEFF]

My poor wagon.

It seems silly to unvote just because you don't agree with additional points. Do you find my original points any less valid?

[GIEFF]

and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum.

OK, am I just misunderstanding what a random vote is? Dourgrim gave reasons for his vote, claimed they were serious, and made it very clear he thought I was scummy. Does that really qualify as a random vote to you? Do you still not understand why I find lying about the reasons for a vote is a giant scumtell? You can disagree with my opinion, I just want you to understand what my opinion is and why I hold it.

@GIEFF: I disagree with some of your points about Panzer needing to provide original content. Is providing original content the mark of a true townie?

Well, I thought it was, especially after Panzer said that he would. But I looked through three of Panzer's games, and found that when he was town (sample size of 2), only about half of his votes/FOS's were based on his own original reasoning, but when he was scum (sample size of one), nearly ALL of his votes/FOS's were based on original reasoning, and he was much more aggressive. His play so far in this game fits more with his town meta than scum meta. I'd still rather trust in-game posts than an overall meta, part of which was in games a year ago, but it gives Panzer some townie-points in my eyes.

Would anybody like to see the analysis? It's extremely long, and may just be more distraction than it's worth.

and you know what I think about how GIEFF tried to make a case out of "lies" and "contradictions". I see a pattern...

The pattern is that I find lying scummy. It looks to me like you think I'm scummy because I'm trying to make a case where I don't really believe there is one, which is just another way of saying I don't believe my own logic, right?

It's ironic that you yourself are using VERY SIMILAR reasons to call me scummy that I used to call Panzer and Dourgrim scummy. You suspect me because you think that my reasons aren't valid. If they really aren't valid, then from your point of view, I could either be a confused townie who doesn't realize is logic is, or a scum trying to push a faulty wagon (i.e. "faking" logic). So what should differentiate scum-me from town-me in your eyes is whether or not I genuinely believe my logic, which is exactly what I've used to conclude that Panzer and Dourgrim are scummy. Right?

The difference is that I truly believe what I am saying, and have gone into detail many times about why this is the case, why I find being untruthful for the reasons behind a vote so scummy. Dourgrim's vote for me was shown to be based on poor logic, and Panzerjager's vote for you was shown to actually have reasons behind it when Panzer claimed it was a joke-vote.


Why are you so sure that I am faking this logic? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that I don't agree with it.

FoS militant

Start contributing.

[GIEFF]

because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)

But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.

But that's the whole point. A vote is a joke only if the

caster

of the vote thinks it is a joke. But based on Dourgrim's reaction, it's clear he did not think it was a joke, and thought the reasoning sound. It may not have been a vote in search of a lynch, but to call it a joke-vote or a random-vote ignores Dourgrim subsequent posts, which show that he took it seriously.

[GIEFF]

My case is not baseless, my case is not based on minutiae, my case is not petty, and my case is not blown up unnaturally far.

Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote.

Not a random vote

, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.

Lying about the reasons behind a vote is not minor, no matter what you think about the additional points I raised.

Also, did I mention that Panzer lied?

(bold for GIEFF to be proud)

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum

Buddying up to me will not convince me you are town.


----------------

I do agree with others who have expressed suspicion at BB's hop off the wagon. I asked him in Post 235 if he thought my original points were made less valid by my later points. He gave a wishy-washy answer in 237 and said he wasn't really all that sure about the wagon (not the reason he originally gave for unvoting), and then said this:

it is just a petty argument over, apparently, a random vote.

No, it isn't. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. IT WAS NOT A RANDOM VOTE. And the Beyond_Birthday of a few pages back agrees wholeheartedly:

Post 150

This is another post by you that seems to indicate you took mykonian's vote seriously. If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

I agree.

I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?

eh heh heh...NO.

Vote Panzerjager

Sure doesn't look to me like you thought it was a petty random vote when you hopped on the wagon, but I guess you thought it made a convenient excuse for jumping off, especially because the first reason you gave ("your additional points don't make sense, so I'm unvoting, ignoring your previous points") was questioned.

HoS Beyond_Birthday

. Busted.

--------------

In no way was I implying that it was refering to all your reasons for voting Panzer - I was only commenting on the point about whether or not his using the word 'townie' was a slip.

But you said that "one word does not a concrete case make", implying that the word was my entire case. It was just a part of my overall case, which IS concrete.


-------------

Are you saying you purposely made the "obvscum" comment to gather reactions?

Yes, although I was also trying to be funny.

------



Zilla, have you read the entire thread yet?


--------------

@mykonian:

Post 244

It's ironic that you yourself are using VERY SIMILAR reasons to call me scummy that I used to call Panzer and Dourgrim scummy. You suspect me because you think that my reasons aren't valid. If they really aren't valid, then from your point of view, I could either be a confused townie who doesn't realize is logic is, or a scum trying to push a faulty wagon (i.e. "faking" logic). So what should differentiate scum-me from town-me in your eyes is whether or not I genuinely believe my logic, which is exactly what I've used to conclude that Panzer and Dourgrim are scummy. Right?

I don't think I got an answer to this. And by ironic, I think I really meant hypocritical. Either revise your own logic, or admit mine is sound; you can't have it both ways.

[GIEFF]

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

[GIEFF]

LAL means lynch all liars.

[GIEFF]

you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

Scummy because you think the case is bad, or scummy because you think that

I

think the case is bad?

Why did you use the word mislynch? Are you so sure Panzer is town? Why?

[GIEFF]

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points. Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE. That is hypocrisy.




I don't think the case I'm pushing is weak. Which of the following 4 points do you disagree with?

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.


And don't give me the "early-game" thing; Panzer lied about this continuously throughout the thread, as recently as just a few pages ago.


Post 241

I don't like GIEFF's post 54

, esspecially the part where he attacks dourgrims random vote. Reasons given were: GIEFF hadn't voted yet, there were 2 votes on GIEFF and OMGUS. I can shoot holes in such a case...

Here is Post 54, for reference.

It looks to me like you're trying to discredit the way I attacked Dourgrim in order to discredit the way I attacked Panzer. The only problem with this is:

Post 90

I don't care if someone doesn't random vote: GIEFF is busy enough. I must say,

I like post 54

.

Townies go after truth, scum already know the truth and go after their own goals, i.e. lynching townies. You are not interpreting my post in order to get to the truth. You are interpreting it however you want to further your own goal In post 90, it fit your needs (attacking Dourgrim) to say "Post 54 good." In post 241 (attacking me/defending Panzer) to say "Post 54 bad."

-------------------------

@Dourgrim: Again, I'm really sorry about the dourscum thing, not just because it's been distracting, but because it really seems to have upset you. It was an honest mistake, but I think the only way you will know I am being truthful is when I flip town. I was talking to someone a few days ago while typing in "mafiascum.net" and accidentally said the word "scum" out loud. It happens.

[GIEFF]

STRAWMAN!!! I said, and I say again, that you should never, with such a case, want to push for a lynch, esspecially if it has been pointed out that there are holes in it. Then it is time to wait, to see if you can get more. Not the time to scream: he lied, he must be lynched!

Which of the four points do you disagree with? Let's actually try to discuss this. If you are town, and you really think that Panzer is town, you should want to convince me of the bogus-i-tude of my case. I am pushing aggressively for a Panzer lynch because I think he is scum. Your "never ever" does not apply.

Here's what you've said about my case so far; I'll put it all here and answer specifically to show why I don't agree. Then hopefully you can either tell me which of the 4 above points (in Post 319) you don't agree with or tell me what about the below responses are wrong.

And you because you have found a "contradiction". Like that is a scumtell. You say that two statements panzer said cannot both be true, and so he must be a liar. It is "how-do-I-find-scum-in-three-days" and it doesn't work.

It is more than just a contradiction; it is continuous lying about the reasoning behind a vote. As outlined in reasons 1-3, I think this is scummy.

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No.

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. It wasn't the day one vote that was a lie, it was the later explanations of it that were lies, and there were more than one. Here is how I responded at the time:

But Panzer's vote wasn't random. Of course the lie isn't intentional; that's a silly thing to say. That's the whole point.

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell. There is no reason for a townie to lie about the reasons for a vote, and to do so reveals the fact that the logic presented at the time of a vote isn't the actual reason for the vote.

And then we sort of dropped it, with you being sure that my case is baseless. There

is

a reason for scum to lie, and I have explained what that is (points 2 and 3), and I believe your only answer for that has been a WIFOM-y "scum wouldn't do that because it looks scummy"-type reply.


-----------------


@Dourgrim: What good does it do to keep bringing it up if it's not because you're upset? I think this is the 3rd or 4th time it was mentioned. It was an accident; what more do you want me to say? There's no way for me to convince you it was an accident, so I don't see the point. You'll just keep saying "I think it was on purpose" and I'll keep saying "No, it wasn't."

[GIEFF]

Just because mykonian thinks the Panzer wagon fits that description does not make it so.

Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.

[GIEFF]

Was he lying intentionally, or was he giving inconsistent reports out of confusion/change in heart, etc.?

I assume you're talking about Panzer?

Faking the reason for his initial mykonian vote was intentional. The later lies and inconsistencies were not intentional. I suppose it is possible he was just genuinely confused, but he was so adamant for so long over so many posts that he knew it was a joke that I find that hard to believe. We can rule a change of heart out entirely; he didn't admit it was a serious vote until it was practically proven.

If both mykonian and Panzer are scum together, I will be very shocked.

I disagree. It is a very low possibility from a statisical standpoint, but based on the very-weird nature of Panzer's original vote for mykonian, mykonian's weird defense of it, and how vigorously mykonian has attacked my case on Panzer, I do see a connection between them.

However, it could just be one scum linking himself to a townie to either implicate that townie if the scum is lynched, or to earn pro-town points if the townie is lynched. (As an aside, I wrote lynching instead of linking the first time around and had to go back and edit it. I was thinking about the next part of my sentence

I would be a lot more surprised if they were both town than if they were both scum. But I agree with Goat that "testing this theory out" is a poor reason for a lynch. Let's just be sure to lynch a scum today, and worry about possible buddies later.

[GIEFF]

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed.

I'm not talking about wiki generalities; I've explained why lying about your reasoning for a vote is scummy way too many times to repeat it. I am not saying "lynch all liars," I am saying "lynch those who lie about their reasons for voting."

@ Gieff's post 337:
Interesting. So, do you support of the theory that if Panzer is scum then Mykonian is scum? Or do you agree in the reverse being true? Or do you just think that it wouldn't be "that shocking?"

I do think that Panzer flipping scum would make mykonian go up the scum-scale (and make dejkha/zilla go down it), but it doesn't really do us much good to speculate about it now.

@GIEFF:
You said:
1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.


Your answers strike me as someone desperate to try to prove me wrong rather than someone genuinely trying to understand my point, which I don't think is so complicated that it should need repeating as many times as I have had to repeat it.

[GIEFF]

Failing to provide original content after you said you would to avoid a lynch is scummy, all metas aside. The fact that you appear to act similarly as town in a small sample size of games isn't enough to overturn that fact, it just tempers it somewhat. And as I said, that isn't the main part of my case, it's just additional reasons.

You also lied for a long period of time, and over multiple posts; there was a lot more cognitive dissonance from you than from BB.

I didn't say BB or Zilla, I said BB or mykonian. Is the fact that you changed the name significant?

[GIEFF]

You don't see how mykonian is scummy, so you misrepresented my position?

I don't feel like reiterating the case right now. Read back through my posts if you're interested.

Gieff, I'm starting to get a very scummy vibe from you

Interesting use of the word "started." You tried to buddy up with me, almost as if to say "stop throwing aggression my way, and I'll stop throwing it yours." Do you think you're getting a scummy vibe from me because I am still going after you?

[GIEFF]

You don't appear interested in reaching consensus with me, mykonian. You just repeat your old points which I have already answered. Which of the four points do you disagree with?

you can't be convinced, as you believe that lie is an absolute scumtell.

I am asking you to convince me. I am asking you to actually take the time to understand the point I'm making, why it relates to the difference between scum and townies, and to respond accordingly. You haven't done that, even after I tried to lay it out into four easy points, to see which one you disagree with. You are more interested in saying "you are wrong, GIEFF" than trying to show me why your point of view is correct and mine is not.

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum.

So you don't think scum-GIEFF would ever bus or distance scum-Panzer? Is your suspicion of me really so strong that you are making nested assumptions based on it? I think Panzer is scum, but not so sure that I'm ready to proclaim with certainty that someone he strongly attacks is town. Was you saying "mislynch" a slip?

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

You are again missing the point. Scum need to lie for EVERY SINGLE SERIOUS VOTE THEY GIVE. They say "I think Player X is scummy because..." but the because is always a lie, because the real reason they think someone is scummy or townie is BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW. Panzer was caught in an inconsistency about trying to explain the reasons he gave for his vote, and this is because the reasons he gave were not actually true.

Scum have plenty to gain by lying, and I've repeated it many times. How do you think a scum should explain the reasoning for a vote without lying? "I think we should lynch player X because he isn't one of my scumbuddies?" What? Panzer's vote was SERIOUS, not a joke, and not random. Lying about it is a big deal.

And what is your case on me and BB? What is so obviously scummy about us? that we don't agree with your "great case"?

Obvoiusly not. I have been more than clear about the reasons I think you and B_B are scummy. Either you're not reading the thread or you're being willfully ignorant in an attempt to make me look scummy.




Beyond_Birthday's scumminess:
Post 350

mykonian's scumminess:
Post 193

[GIEFF]

@mykonain.

ONCE AGAIN, Panzer's lies were not just early in the game, but throughout the thread. And ONCE AGAIN, scum does have reason to lie. And ONCE AGAIN, which of the four points do you disagree with? Your failure to answer or even pay attention to what I am saying is distracting for both me and for everybody else.


I think we may be falling into the trap of only focusing on what the most active people are saying, because they have a lot more words to focus on. Macavitylock/qwints and ting =) are still flying under the radar. Macavitylock especially, as I think he was quite scummy before he went inactive.

1a) Who's the one with the vote-counting script? Can you please post your most recent results in the thread?

Here you go:

By Character:

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF Post 19
Unvote, Vote:Mykonian Post 36
FoS:Ting Post 44
Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby Post 158
FoS:Gieff Post 225
Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday, Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday Post 265
Unvote:Zilla, Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday Post 296
Unvote. Vote:Zilla Post 298

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager Post 20
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock Post 77
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday Post 285

mykonian

vote GIEFF Post 24
unvote, vote GIEFF Post 55
FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim Post 137
vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF Post 241
unvote vote Beyond_birthday Post 251
unvote vote GIEFF Post 312

militant

Vote ting =) Post 25
Unvote Post 279

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock Post 26
unvote. Vote:Panzerjager Post 38

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim Post 27
Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer Post 47
Unvote Post 125

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager Post 28
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 33
FoS: springlullaby Post 40
unvote: GIEFF Post 80
FoS: mykonian, vote: Panzer Post 95
FoS: GIEFF Post 217
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 219

subgenius

vote:Militant Post 29
FoS: Panzer Post 167
unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager Post 170

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian Post 31
Unvotes Post 71
Unvote Post 234

springlullaby

Vote subgenius Post 39
Vote djekha Post 97
Unvote, vote djekha Post 98
Unvote Post 270

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
FOS Post 275
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim Post 54
FOS Panzerjager Post 96
unvote, Vote Panzerjager Post 105
FoS mykonian Post 193
FoS militant Post 244
Not a random vote, HoS Beyond_Birthday Post 305

By Chronology:

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 1

kloud1516

vote: kloud unvote
Post 19

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF
Post 20

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager
Post 24

mykonian

vote GIEFF
Post 25

militant

Vote ting =)
Post 26

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock
Post 27

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 28

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager
Post 29

subgenius

vote:Militant
Post 31

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian
Post 33

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 36

Panzerjager

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian
Post 38

ting =)

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager
Post 39

springlullaby

Vote subgenius
Post 40

Dourgrim

FoS: springlullaby
Post 44

Panzerjager

FoS:Ting
Post 46

dejkha

FoS: Dourgrim
Post 47

MacavityLock

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer
Post 54

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 55

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF
Post 71

Beyond_Birthday

Unvotes
Post 77

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Post 80

Dourgrim

unvote: GIEFF
Post 95

Dourgrim

FoS: mykonian vote: Panzer
Post 96

GIEFF

FOS Panzerjager
Post 97

springlullaby

Vote djekha
Post 98

springlullaby

Unvote, vote djekha
Post 105

GIEFF

unvote Vote Panzerjager
Post 125

MacavityLock

Unvote
Post 137

mykonian

FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim
Post 158

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby
Post 167

subgenius

FoS: Panzer
Post 170

subgenius

unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager
Post 193

GIEFF

FoS mykonian
Post 217

Dourgrim

FoS: GIEFF
Post 219

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 225

Panzerjager

FoS:Gieff
Post 234

Beyond_Birthday

Unvote
Post 241

mykonian

vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF
Post 244

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 251

mykonian

unvote vote Beyond_birthday
Post 259

Zilla

Vote: Goatrevolt
Post 265

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday
Post 270

springlullaby

Unvote
Post 275

Zilla

FOS
Post 279

militant

Unvote
Post 285

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday
Post 296

Panzerjager

Unvote:Zilla Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday
Post 297

Zilla

unvote: goatrevolt Vote: Mykonian
Post 298

Panzerjager

Unvote. Vote:Zilla
Post 305

GIEFF

Not a random vote HoS Beyond_Birthday
Post 312

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF

[GIEFF]

Sorry, I don't mean to be screaming; I am just getting frustrated that we don't seem to be understanding each other.

On the lying: as far as I recall, it is the contradiction between first a serious vote, and later making it a half joke vote, am I right?

Then we know what we are both talking about.

Yes, I agree.

Then the following, because we clearly disagree there: you say lieing is a universal scumtell, because scum needs to lie for their reasons.

I don't think all lying is a universal scumtell, and I never said it was. I do think lying about the reasoning for a vote is scummy, and have explained why that is.

You get to this, because you say that no matter what, the conclusion must be wrong: the one they vote is town.

I'm confused about this part. I don't think I said that? What I'm saying is that no matter what, the reasons presented are not the real reasons used to determine alignment. They KNOW alignment already.

and scum doesn't need to lie about that logic. They can point out scummy acts done by town, because town is not perfect, and still end up with the wrong conclusion. So, esspecially when nobody knows a thing, and the standard of the votes is not high, it is useless to lie with the logic, not only with the conclusion. That's why it is bad play, no matter what allignment the liar in this case has.

You keep talking about good and bad logic, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Townies can use poor logic, but they will believe it to be valid. Scum can use flawless logic, but it has no bearing on their vote, as they are voting for their own reasons.

I think that a scum using flawless logic is still lying. Even if nothing false is said, there is a misrepresentation going on. The scum claims "I am voting for Player X for reason Y." Even if reason Y is 100% and logical, that is NOT the real reason the scum is voting for Player X. THAT is where the lie is.

Do you see the distinction? It's not whether the logic is poor or valid, it's whether the person presenting the logic actually used it to come to a decision about alignment. Townies DO use the logic to decide alignment, and scum do not.


Townies use logic to determine alignment, and scum do not.

[GIEFF]

I believe the reason Panzer lied about the way he interpreted mykonian's vote is that he never believed the reasoning he presented in the first place. He wasn't using logic to hunt scum, he was faking logic to make it look like he was hunting scum. He has posted little original content, but is happy to parrot others' opinions. He called dejkha a "townie."

[GIEFF]

Now we are not talking about lies anymore, we are talking about motivations behind a vote. Can you prove me that Panzer his motivations for his vote on me are not for hunting scum, but are an excuse for a vote on me? (I think I know where this will go, but when it is 23.40, I'm not going to try)

Good! This stuff is hard to talk about because it's sort of nested, one level below the surface.

Yes, we are talking about the reasons for a vote. But I do think that this is still a lie; if you say your reasons are X, but your reasons are really Y, then you are lying, no matter the validity of X.

Of course I can't prove anything; that is the nature of the game. I will show you why I believe it to be true, though, using Panzer's own words.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

So Panzer said he thought you were trying to put pressure on me. A joke- or random-vote is not, by definition, an attempt to apply pressure.

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way he said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

This is a lie. Panzer did not know it was a joke, or at least was pretending not to. If town, it's the former; if scum, it's the latter.

Panzer tried to claim that he knew your post was a joke, but it contained a slip. But he said you were putting pressure on me, which reveals that he did NOT think your post was a joke.

He said this just 25 hours after his original vote for you.


So, either Panzer forgot his reasoning just 25 hours after presenting it, or the reasoning wasn't really the reason he voted you in the first place. The fact that the reasoning was so poor is just another reason to suspect it wasn't the true reason for his vote. Panzer seems like a smart guy, I don't think he would make a mistake like that on accident.

And notice that the lies about his reasoning came well after the fact, no longer in the random-voting stage.




--------------------

Regarding the use of the words "truly" and "honestly;" here are examples of Panzer using these words to describe his own thoughts:

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum

I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt".

I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

I must of not thought all that threw and probably didn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.

I truly believe that had you asked me when I mad that post on Mykonian, I would have said I thought it was serious.

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons.

And on the Truly/honestly thing, this is just the way I speak. I speak like this in everyday conversation. I don't change my regular speech patterns in a mafia game.

I tested this claim.

In Mini 716, you were town. You used these words once to describe your own thoughts, in 37 posts, although it was more about meta-game than game.

The reason games go so slow is due to the meta liking long long long day 1's, I truly dislike this and I think these quicker games are better

In Mini 639, you were town. You used these words once to describe your own thoughts, in 19 posts.

I honestly think the Knight has nothing else to go on so he is picking the one guy who dropped off the radar.

In Mini 556, you were scum. You used these words 4 times to describe your thoughts, in 82 posts.

Honestly, That is what it comes off as.

I honestly don't care cause i'm convinced its fake already

I can honestly buy that he has changed his playstyle.

Honestly, the dots don't mean anything

So it looks like for this small sample size you use it at about the same rate regardless of your alignment. Can you point me to some more games where you were scum? Or to a game as town where you have closer to 80 posts?

[GIEFF]

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

So you are suggesting a goat-mykonian-panzer scum pair?


I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

[GIEFF]

BB, you said you just agreed with my logic like a sheep and hopped on the wagon, but that's not what you said at the time.

I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?

eh heh heh...NO.

Do you no longer think this is scummy? When did you change your mind? Or did you just take my word for it that it was scummy, and you NEVER really thought it was scummy?

GIEFF-

Meh... your very closeminded and although

I agree with your general arguments,

I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit.

So you agree with my general arguments so long as their conclusion is not that you are scummy?

I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

I can see you're not interesting in having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate you responding to my 4 points, but when I responded to your responses and told you why I disagreed, instead of letting me know if you agree, or why you disagree, you choose to say:

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

YOU are the one who responded; I was simply continuing the discussion. If you aren't interested in a back-and-forth, then why did you answer the question, which was originally directed at mykonian? Do you have no answer to my responses? Surely if you think my logic is so horrible, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to reply, right?

I think the reason you felt the need to answer questions that were not directed at you is that you are interested in discrediting my case on Panzer in order to cover for your disengage from the Panzer wagon. "Oh no, they realized my unvote was odd, I better convince them that I really don't think GIEFF's case is valid, as that's the reason I gave." It's unfortunate for you that there is evidence of you agreeing with my case before it suited your needs not to.

Lying about your reasons for unvoting is just as scummy as lying about your reasons for voting.

[GIEFF]

I don't see how speculating about that does any good. Let's see what role people are before we start trying to find scum partners. We can't lynch more than one scum, so let's not try to.

I think Panzer is the scummiest, followed (closely) by Birthday, and then followed by mykonian. I very much doubt that I'm right about all three of them, though. And for all we know, there could very well be more or less than two scum.


And Zilla, you spent mountains of text defending BB, and now all of a sudden he's second on your scumlist?

[GIEFF]

Or maybe you saw him call you out on blatantly defending him, so you decided you had better stop?

Can you go into detail about how his post undercut your foundation? How does the way he answered affect the way you perceived goat's logic? Do you now think goat's case is a valid one?

[GIEFF]

Unvote

Vote Beyond_Birthday

[GIEFF]

I have been following the back-and-forth between Panzer, Zilla, and Goat, and don't have anything to add right now. I considered commenting on Panzer's post about Zilla when he first made it, but I'm glad I didn't as I think Zilla's response gave us a lot of information that it might not have had I stepped in and answered for her.

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

I look at it differently. It's not that the lack of the defense is the cause for a lynch, its' the fact that he's done so many scummy things. Not defending against valid points is PLENTY reason to lynch someone.

I agree Panzer is linked to more people, but I think B_B is the best lynch for today. His "defense" was horrible, he's had multiple inconsistencies in logic, and he is needlessly antagonistic.



Goat reads as quite towny to me, Zilla. I understand his suspicion of quick wagons with little opposition.



Could you summarize your case on Goat in a few sentences, as Dourgrim has asked others to do?

[GIEFF]

I believe that's L-2, so let's be careful about future B_B votes. If you want to vote, just use HOS instead. If we get enough votes and HOS's so that votes + HOS = lynch, I think a claim is in order.

[GIEFF]

I don't usually ascribe to lynching the loudest target. It's the lurky type that really bug me, and I'm wary of being led astray just because someone else is more vocal.

I think we should all keep this in mind. If I were scum in a game with a lot of vocal townies, I'd just let them hammer away at each other and hide in the background. We can't let this strategy be a valid one; it is too easy.



Zilla and Goat, I'm trying to read what you are arguing about, but my eyes just keep glazing over. Put the egos aside for a second and ask yourselves if you REALLY find the other one scummy, or if you're just arguing minutiae in an effort to prove yourselves right (which is what your latest posts seem like to me). Honestly read back over the thread and see how your reasoning progresses.

[GIEFF]

I don't want to get into more quote wars about the panzer case, so I'll try to respond briefly, ting.

gieff wrote:
1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

NO. That would mean that tunneling is perfectly okay. By this logic, if panzer had stuck to his original myko vote all the way till now (which I think we've all established was not a good vote), then you'd still see him as town.

This is wrong. This argument has been used before (I think by mykonian), so I'll respond to it.

Not believing your reasons for a vote

is scummy. However, this is hard to see (how do I know what another really believes?), so you have to look for clues

Inconsistency about the reasoning behind a vote is just one possible clue, and the one I used to conclude that Panzer didn't believe his reasoning for his mykonian vote. Similarly, continuing to tunnel in on a case that has been proved to be ridiculous (as Panzer's initial vote of mykonian was proved) is another possible clue. "Could Panzer REALLY believe that mykonian is the serial killer?" Therefore, continuing to tunnel is NOT a viable strategy to protect the fact that the reasons your case is based on are bullshit.

Yes, tunneling avoids the "inconsistent reasoning" clue, but you are assuming that this is the only possibly way to find fake reasoning, which is not true.

Mafia isn't a logic game. It'd be no more than a maths puzzle if it was.

When I use the word "logic," I really mean "the things townies do to try to figure out who is town and who is scum." These are things that townies MUST do to figure out who is scum, and things that scum do NOT need to do at all, as they already know. Sorry if the use of the word "logic" was confusing; I will try to use the word reasons from now on.

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points. Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE.

That was not what Mykonian said.

Yes, it was. Just

in other words.

, as I said.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?

----------


@Dourgrim;

First off, I noticed you never responded to my Post 224, which I feel disproves your claim in Post 219 that I am blatantly misrepresenting your case, which was your reason for voting me.

Secondly, your Zilla-WIFOM post is mind-boggling. You make a lot of faulty arguments and come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense even if your arguments weren't faulty.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

"if we blindly followed, it would be Bad Town play." Agreed, but that hardly is enough to argue against a B_B lynch. IF B_B fips town, and IF Zilla is also town and IF the town blindly follows a town-B_B lynch with a Zilla lynch, then lynching B_B will have been a bad idea. What do you think the odds are of all three of those things being true? I put it at well below 5%.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. What does scummy players suspecting Zilla have to do with a B_B lynch? Are you still talking about the nested possibility of lynching B_B, B_B coming up town, and then the town focusing in on Zilla? Why? Doesn't this seem very unlikely? Even if they are both town, why do you think we' would just blindly lynch Zilla? Because an over-emotional dead townie asked us to?

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch?

What does Zilla have anything to do with B_B's scumminess or his inability to defend himself? Here is your vote for B_B. Explain to me exactly which parts of this post are invalidated by B_B's Zilla-WIFOM.

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

As Goat and I have both said, this is NOT the reason for lynching B_B. This is NOT the reasoning you presented at the time of your B_B vote, so why are you focusing only on this now?

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

So in your mind, all a scum has to do to avoid a lynch is to say "well, if I come up town, be sure to lynch Player Y tomorrow?" Because that's what it looks like.


Furthermore, immediately after this post, you say this:

EBWOP: I'm not trying to lead the Town here, I'm just presenting my opinion on what I think optimal play is here. Do what you want.

What? You most certainly ARE trying to lead the Town. There is nothing scummy about it; if you feel a certain strategy is best for the town, of course you will try to lead the town to follow it. What IS scummy is leading the town while pretending not to, as if you are trying to distance yourself from whatever results from your actions. "Hey, that was your guys' choice, not mine."

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Agreed. It is a false dilemma, trying to get the town to think they must choose between one or the other: a Panzer lynch or a mykonian lynch.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all.

You seem quite conscious of the need to not look like you lead the town when we look back on today after a lynch. It is also quite clear that you ARE trying to lead the town. Why do you think that leading the town is bad, if you are really so certain that Panzer is the best lynch for today?

-----


Beyond_Birthday - is your role serial killer?

[GIEFF]

I believe post 224 is in and of itself an oversimplification meant to be cute. Gosh, but that was witty how you "can't make it any more simple than that" for us other not-GIEFF players. Once again, your condescending nature leaps to the fore.

Not at all. You misunderstood what I was saying, and used that misunderstanding to justify a vote for me. As it was a complicated point, I tried to explain it as simply as possible so you would realize that I was not mis-representing your position.

You chose to respond emotoinally instead of answering the question, so I will ask it again: do you agree with post 224? And if so, why did you ignore it, leaving your vote on me for so long even after I pointed out that you were misunderstanding me?

I was trying to be as simple and concise as possible, and I was describing what I thought you and ting were saying; quoting the entire posts would have made the logic more difficult to follow. If you thought I was misrepresenting you or ting, why didn't you say so? You said you voted me because I misrepresented your position, so if you thought I did it again just a few posts later, wouldn't you bring it up and say "aha, he's doing it again?" Why did you just ignore it?

Because I was NOT misrepresenting your position, and you know it.

So in your mind, all a scum has to do to avoid a lynch is to say "well, if I come up town, be sure to lynch Player Y tomorrow?" Because that's what it looks like.

Huh? Seriously, GIEFF, your logic is usually pretty good, but you desperately need to stop trying to restate people's opinions for them. I never said that at all, nor have I been able to find a post that implies that I think that. The part of my post that you quoted says that I'd rather avoid a WIFOM and pursue a lynch of one of my suspects that also happens to have great potential for giving the Town more information. How you came up with your spin on my quote is beyond me.

Here is your post that I don't understand. I am not trying to misrepresent your position. I'll try to step through what I think you're saying, and I'll number it so you can tell me either where I'm wrong or where you disagree, and hopefully we can reach a consensus.

1. Your first two paragraphs explain why lynching Zilla (based on B_B's post) would be a bad idea.
   
2. Your third paragraph says that lynching B_B is a bad idea, because it is filled with WIFOM from about the the Zilla-B_B link.
   
3. B_B was the one who injected the WIFOM by saying "if I flip town, then Zilla is scum, so lynch Zilla tomorrow."
   
4. As the Zilla-WIFOM was the reason you presented for wanting to hop off the B_B wagon, I concluded that all a scum has to do to get you to hop off his wagon is exactly what B_B did, i.e. say "if I come up town, lynch Player Y tomorrow."

Of course you didn't say that word-for-word, and of course I didn't SAY you said that. I tried to understand your logic for wanting to unvote B_B, and concluded that it boiled down to point 3 above.

Is that correct? If not, please explain it more clearly, and explain why you did not say so in your "Zilla-WIFOM" post. And if it is correct, do you understand why it looks to me like all a scum has to do is repeat point 3? You said yourself "Well, there is WIFOM here, so it's a bad lynch," ignoring the fact that B_B himself was the one to inject that WIFOM, so I concluded that all ANYONE would have to do to get you off his wagon is inject some WIFOM in a similar manner to the way B_B did.

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch?

What does Zilla have anything to do with B_B's scumminess or his inability to defend himself? Here is your vote for B_B. Explain to me exactly which parts of this post are invalidated by B_B's Zilla-WIFOM.

I'm not at all sure of why you think I think it is invalidated. Again, I'm just refuting BB's logic.

You are not just refuting the logic. You summarize it in paragraphs 1 and 2, but use it as a justification for hopping off the B_B wagon in paragraph 3. That is more than just a summary, that is using it to explain an unvote.


So I will ask again: what does Zilla have to do with the reasons you initially presented for voting B_B? You assume that if B_B flips town, then we will automatically lynch Zilla, and you also assume that this will be bad, as you assume Zilla will be town. This is odd logic, to say the least, and does not convince me that it is your real reason for wanting to unvote B_B.

[GIEFF]

So you see nothing wrong with this post, Zilla?

[GIEFF]

That makes no sense at all, Zilla.

I share Goat's mindset, and I don't know alignments. The primary factor in determining who to lynch should be who we think is most likely to be scum. This isn't rocket science. If it TRULY is a tie in your mind, then I guess you should go for the lynch that provides information.

Drop the Goat thing, already. He's not getting lynched today. Your pages and pages of arguing about nothing is very anti-town and is distracting us from our lynch decision.

[GIEFF]

No worries, Dourgrim; sorry you had a rough day.

[GIEFF]

Zilla, you have said you think I am townie, so please listen.

Goat will not be lynched today. Your incessant focus and pages and pages of back-and-forth are hurting the town. Please drop it.

[GIEFF]

I think town-panzer might actually give us more information than scum-birthday. While, in retrospect, it's always better to lynch scum, we don't know their alignments...

What information would town-panzer give? What information would scum-Birthday give?



I mention what you have said you think of me so that you realize that I am telling the truth when I say I think your Goat-banter is hurting the town. It is preventing both you and Goat from pursuing the best possible lynch candidate, which Goat assuredly is not, and which you very likely are not.

If anybody else thinks that the Zilla-Goat discussions are pro-town, or that Goat is a viable lynch candidate, please speak up.

Also, the same could EASILY be said about you and Dourgrim.

My latest long post toward Dourgrim was on a completely different subject than our original back-and-forth.

[GIEFF]

Also, what information would town-Goat or scum-Goat give? I assume you believe it's more information than town-mykonian or scum-mykonian would give?

[GIEFF]

You are right ting; I went back and read the original context, and Dourgrim said that well before his Zilla-WIFOM post. So at the time he said this, he was not trying to lead the town in this way.

However, the fact remains that he used this

same

false dilemma in his Zilla-WIFOM post. He concluded that a B_B lynch would be bad, so then said he had to fall back on

either

GIEFF

or

the Panzer-Myko connection.

-------------------------------

scum-goat explains a TON more than town-goat does; hence why I think he's a valid target.

I disagree whole-heartedly. So if Goat comes up town, we're screwed, basically? If we lynch a scum, we don't NEED any more information for it to have been a successful lynch. If you want to play the lynch-for-information angle, it should at the very least be a way to hedge our bets, i.e. if we do happen o lynch town, at least the towniness of that poster would give us a lot of information.

How many player-links do you (Dourgrim and Zilla) need to make him a better lynch than Panzer?

[GIEFF]

@ting; my research into Panzer's meta actually showed that the rate at which he used those words was similar as town and as scum. There were more occurences in the scum-game simply because he had 4 times the number of posts, so I'm going to ignore the "truly/honestly" thing from here on out.

Similarly, my research into Panzer's meta about providing original reasoning for votes also gave Panzer some townie points, lending less credence to that point, too. I still think active lurking/parroting is scummy, but in a game I found where Panzer was scum, he brought up new points and logic CONSTANTLY.


I don't want to base a whole case on meta, but these two things showed me that some of my secondary points on Panzer (i.e. not much original scumhunting and using words "truly" and "honestly" a lot), while scummy, do fit in with Panzer's town-meta.

[GIEFF]

Vote Count VII

Beyond_Birthday

(3): Goatrevolt, GIEFF, Panzerjager

Panzerjager

(3): ting=), subgenius, Dourgrim

GIEFF

(2): mykonian, Zilla

Zilla

(1): Beyond_Birthday

Not Voting:

qwints, springlullaby, militant

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Please notify me if there is a discrepancy in the list above

I think Zilla is voting for goatrevolt.

[GIEFF]

Zilla, what were you hoping to accomplish with your latest post, and how does it help the town?

[GIEFF]

Goat Revolt, mykonian, Beyond_Birthday, Panzer, subgenius, militant, and myself have all said we don't like you asking for summaries before reading the thread.

Here is your vote history:

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297
FOS: Goatrevolt Post 421
unvote: Mykonian <BR>Vote: Goatrevolt Post 486


Your only votes have been for the first two players to point this out, when you lashed out at both of them and still haven't let up, especially on Goat, who was the first.

I don't think this is a coincidence, I think you are just stubborn and can't get past your initial frustration and move on to other players.

I'm not the one who started this argument over posting summaries. If people had posted summaries to begin with, there would be more game relevant content and not this stupid meta-debate, but instead, people have spent more energy rebuffing my request than it would have taken to fulfill it, and I hate how people don't want to be held accountable!

This is not the right attitude to take when so many people are telling you they disagree. It isn't about being accountable, it's about you being wrong. It's OK to be wrong, but it isn't OK to take your anger at being wrong and stretch it into pages and pages of anti-town quibbling to soothe your bruised ego, which is what your entire case on Goat looks like.

-----------------

And BB has a point. She was defending him prior to even knowing what my case on him was about. After he admitted my case was valid, she threw out a "I need to reassess BB because he agreed with Goat's case" post, but has played as though he is town from that point onward.

Links plz?

Here you go:

Here is your post 385, where you say Goat's case on BB is bad, and defend BB's behavior. In it, you even say:

Yeah, call it chainsaw if you like, but I'm explaining why I don't buy your case.

And here is your post 387, where you are forced to admit that Goat's case IS valid. I noticed you still assign no suspicion to B_B in this post, though:

@ GIEFF: I'm not as suspicious of Panzer as I am of Myk, if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum.

You had another post attacking BB, but still no vote, still no FOS, and then you went RIGHT BACK TO GOAT, hardly mentioning BB at all until specifically asked to.

Post 429
Post 431
Post 441
Post 443
Post 476
Post 482
Post 486

These posts all attack goat, and you had only brief mentions of B_B, even though you said you think B_B has slipped, and admitted he was scum.

If you think B_B slipped, why has there been the lack of follow-up on your part? If you think B_B slipped, shouldn't you want to ensure that his lynch goes through?

Oh, wow....

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things,

he reaches the right conclusions

and at least considers the right reasons.)

Is this an admission?

Now, however, BB seems to acknowledge that the case was actually solid, and, most importantly,

reaches the right conclusions.

It was a LONG time ago that you said those things, and I don't like your lack of follow-up. If you really believed this when you said it, you would not have defaulted right back to your Goat-vision quote-war. You defended B_B to a LARGE degree, and even used the words "chainsaw defense," and when B_B admitted that Goat's points were valid, you failed to follow up on B_B, instead choosing to find new reasons to attack Goat.


As Goat himself said:

Quote:
You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.

This is abundantly clear. If you weren't already suspicious of Goat, you would not have continued to pick at every post he makes to try to squeeze out every last drop of scummy you can possibly find. You aren't doing this with other players, just the one you initially voted for calling your summary-idea a bad one.


Things like the below quote are revealing of this mindset you have:

If I am to believe your stance is the same as it was in post 240, FOS: Goatrevolt. You're critical of nobody defending panzer, so

you're defending panzer

, all the while trying to admit that he looks scummy.

A LOT of people are not critical of people defending panzer. If this was your true criteria for scumminess, you would not have JUST focused on Goat.

I'm sure there are more examples of you calling Goat scummy for doing something that a lot of people are doing (calling you out for asking for summaries being another one). If you are being genuine in your reasoning for voting Goat, you would apply these reasons to other players as well, instead of focusing so much of your time on effort on one player who is extremely unlikely to be today's lynch.

[GIEFF]

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?

almost. I thought you shouldn't believe in it. But now I can see how you could... Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

.

OK. So I was close.

I took myko's meaning to be - "Me and others have been pointing out to you time and time now the weak points in your case, but you're just ignoring them and pushing on anyway." Not that you don't believe to see your case - but that you're refusing to look at any point that disagrees with it. There's a fairly subtle difference. The last sentence in myko's post which you declined to include in your quote would suggest so.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

You simply refuse to see them.

Myko is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, in which case I've read his post wrong and take all this back.

Ting, you are completely right.

OK, so I was not close.

Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

Or maybe ting=) will? What did you mean by "get out of this?" And why couldn't you tell me what you meant before ting =) told you what you really meant?

[GIEFF]

Yes, I can see that it makes sense. I was talking about motivation the entire time, I just think I wasn't communicating that effectively. I was talking about lying about the reasons (read: motivation) for a vote.

[GIEFF]

Most of his case is shot down, but GIEFF can't let go of the "lie". That should be where we lynch Panzer on. He pushed this too far, I thought, and after I point out what he is doing, he comes with something new.

I disagree. My case was not "shot down." I asked you to tell me which part you disagreed with, and instead of discussing it, all you said was "well hmm, I guess I can see your point" and left it at that. And now you're right back to my case being shot down.

I myself sort of shot down two of my arguments about meta by spending hours researching Panzer's other games. But my initial reason for suspecting Panzer has not been "shot down." You may disagree, but I am not convinced that your opinion is more valid than my own.

Also, I did not come up with something new. I have been consistent the whole time. What you are calling "motivation" is the same thing I have been calling "reasons." They both describe the thing townies do to decide for whom to vote. My point has not changed, although I have tried changing the way I describe it to make it easier to understand.

I will show you, based on my own quotes.

You said you knew mykonian's post was a joke, yet your subsequent reactions to it prove beyond a doubt that you took it seriously.

FOS Panzerjager

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie. Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to

lie about their reasoning for voting.

If you really are town, what you should do is

stop lying about your reasons for voting people

, and yes, as you said, start scumhunting.

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught

lying about his reasons for voting

. That is a giant scumtell.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell. There is no reason for a townie to

lie about the reasons for a vote

, and to do so reveals the fact that the logic presented at the time of a vote isn't the actual reason for the vote.

The main tool I look for to find scum is clues that would indicate a person

doesn't really buy their own reasons for voting

.

Lying about reasoning. This is a huge scumtell

I did not back off or come up with something new because my point was "shot down." It's the same point it has always been.

-------------

Holy crap, now GIEFF's getting in on misrepresenting. Do I really want to go into all this? I mean, christ...

Briefly then.

Goat Revolt, mykonian, Beyond_Birthday, Panzer, subgenius, militant, and myself have all said we don't like you asking for summaries before reading the thread.

Militant doesn't belong on that list, reading his post, and notice the others and how their reaction is far less "No, go read the thread" and more "Here's some places you should read first," and also how Birthday gave his views on people.

Throughout the thread, you've shown that you think you can find something in an argument, nitpick it, and then ignore the larger argument that is obviously the point of the post.

My argument, obviously, is that a LOT of people didn't like your request for summaries. A lot of them. The degree to which some did is irrelevant.

You are not interested in understanding what I'm saying, you're interested in finding a small part of my overall argument you can attack, saying "misrepresentation" and then moving on as if my entire argument is invalidated and you don't need to respond to it. This is deflection, and it is scummy; I KNOW you understood my point.

Many people did not like your request for a summary. I haven't seen a SINGLE PERSON say it was a good idea, or that they think not giving you a summary means they are not accountable.

If anybody does feel this way, please speak up now.

So you're saying you buy Goat's misconstucted version of this where I'm "voting on frustration" instead of where I'm voting him for not wanting to be held accountable.

That's sure what it looks like to me. You're claiming that you're voting Goat for not wanting to be held accountable?

Post 234:

It would be unfair of me to accuse you of being non aggressive but I would say you are arguing over pretty much nothing at all. All you have to do is read the thread. That is it. You have created more useless non game related discussion since replacing because you don't want to read the thread. That is slightly hypocritical.

What.
the.
Fuck.

I'm not the one who started this argument over posting summaries. If people had posted summaries to begin with, there would be more game relevant content and not this stupid meta-debate, but instead, people have spent more energy rebuffing my request than it would have taken to fulfill it, and I hate how people don't want to be held accountable!

At the time you wrote this, 5 people had told you that your idea of getting summaries before reading the thread yourself was a poor one. Five people who "don't want to be held accountable" in your mind.

If being unaccountable is truly your reason for voting Goat, you would have focused also on other players who were "unaccountable." Your unnatural focus on Goat reveals that "unaccountability" is not your true reason; if it were, you would apply it consistently to others whom you found "unaccountable."

I think you know how I feel about using false reasons (or motivation, for mykonian) for a vote.



I now consider Zilla in my "lynchable today" category, along with B_B, Panzer, and mykonian.

[GIEFF]

Unvote

Vote Zilla

[GIEFF]

Your case consisted out of the lying of panzer, and a few minor points (I forgot them, sorry), in the end, only the lying remained. The small points proved to be close to nothing.

With reasons, I think about things that logically make you vote. About motivation, I think what you intend to do with your vote.

In that case, I misunderstood you when you said "motivation." I am not talking about what you are calling motivation.


This is something like the third time you have tried to construe my case as "LAL." It is not. It is "LAPWLATRFV."

(lynch all players who lie about their reasons for voting)


--------------------------

No need to claim now, B_B.

mod, can we get a vote count?

------------------------

There's no need to play catch-up, springlullaby; I will post a summary for you:


Zilla is scum.



There, you don't even have to read the thread now. You're welcome.

[GIEFF]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

[GIEFF]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

But on the other hand, Panzers actions cannot be explained, and I don't like that. Means something is wrong there.

I'm sorry, could you tell me what "sitting on the fence" means?

It means you don't commit to telling us how you feel about players or cases, other than a select few (i.e. me vs. Panzer). It's easier to avoid being caught in contradictions or inconsistencies that way.

You gave a great example in that very post. You leave the door open for both sides, refusing to commit. "But on the other hand..."

[GIEFF]

Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

Or maybe ting=) will? What did you mean by "get out of this?"

I don't like what you're trying to imply in the first sentence. I still don't like how you try to read slips into everything like the second sentence.

I don't think it was a slip, I just don't know what he meant.

I could see a way for Zilla to be scum, but I can also see her as town. What makes the one more likely then the other?

Logic, persuasion, analyis.

[GIEFF]

I have tried to be as logical as possible explaining why scum and town go through very different processes when explaining their reasoning for votes. This goes to the very nature of the way the game is set up; i.e. the scum have information the town do not, and they have to pretend they do not have this information.

That is how you know. If someone's behavior makes it look like they have more knowledge than they should. This can be in the form of slips (which I think are a lot more important than you do, ting; they can reveal the mindset of the poster. My dourscum slip revealed I was thinking dourgrim was scum at the time I was writing it.), or it can be revealed by inducing that people are giving reasons for voting that they do not really believe in, or it can be revealed by having a bias toward innocence of another (as Zilla showed toward B_B), or for other reasons.

There is no being sure, and if I presented cases as "well, you might be scum because of this, but of course I'm not sure, so on the other hand you might not be, so I don't know" then we'd never get anywhere.


I can see a scum motivation behind your wishy-washiness (to use your own words): ensuring you don't get caught out in any inconsistencies. After all, if you're faking reasons for a vote, it's much easier to just keep track of your opinions on one or two people or cases than on a whole slew of them, as Zilla has learned.


I would like to see you post a list of your thoughts on every other player in the game. You don't have to be sure, juts tell us what you think.

[GIEFF]

Your entire post is deflection. You don't answer a

single

point raised. Ridiculous.

The whole way this scene is playing out, and especially GIEFF switching votes at Birthday gets another, seems way too opportunistic to me. I suspect at least 2, if not all 3, out of Birthday, Goat, and GIEFF to be scum.

Wonderful. I go from being one of only two people you see as town to being in your three-most-scummiest, and all because I attacked you. You never focus on people until after they disagree with you or attack you.

My original assertion that he

(GIEFF)

was town was entirely based on not wanting to clearly distinguish between him and Dour, and finding Dour pro-town to begin with. He got "town by association" from that.

Ridiculous.

Confirm vote Zilla

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?


-------

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.

No. This is not true. A major part of the case was his suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon.

GIEFF: my best bet now. He exited his case against panzer with an unfalsifiable argument, and was on both BB and Zilla's wagon in time.

Do you think my disengage was scummier than B_B's? Did you even notice B_B's? Or is exiting the Panzer case only scummy when I do it?

B_B's behavior was a lot scummier than Panzer's had been up to that point, so I switched. I think Zilla's behavior has been scummier than B_B's, so I switched again. I wasn't just "on the wagon," I contributed to both, and explained my logic. Didn't you say aggressive play was pro-town? Or is that only when Panzer does it?

I am not defending myself here, mykonian, I am attacking you. Your reasons for voting me apply just as well if not better to other players. B_B's disengage from the Panzer wagon was EXTREMELY scummy, and Goatrevolt has been on the same two wagons.

I believe you are voting me because you just realized that you still aren't voting for anyone and you want to appease my charge of you being wishy-washy. If the reasons you gave for voting me were genuine, you would be suspicious of others who exhibited the same behavior.

[GIEFF]

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive. I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

Have you read the points against her? She is scum.

[GIEFF]

:x

[GIEFF]

qwints, if you really thought the Zilla wagon was scum-driven, shouldn't you be saying something other than just the fact you think it's scum-driven? If your objective is to hunt scum, you wouldn't just use your suspicion of a player being scum as defense, you would use it as offense, trying to build a case against that person.

Or is catching scum not one of your conditions for victory in this game? You seem more eager to defend Zilla than to try to find scum.

Here are your words about Zilla:

On the most likely town side:
Zilla
Asking for a summary is suspicious, but it suggests a lazy player rather than a scummy one. Since then, her posts have been aggressive and fairly detailed.

I read the attack on zilla to be more based on her abrasiveness than her actual play. Being aggressive is pro-town (especially on day 1.) I need to re-read more closely to see if there is a scummy motive behind the misrepresentation

I assume you haven't read more closely yet?

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive. I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

Here are your words about who you find scummy:

Here are my thoughts so far:
Mykonia and panzer come off as the scummiest players right now, and they could certainly be part of a team. Panzer attacked Mykonia early on and then tried to dismiss it as a joke, despite claiming that his vote "moved us out of the random voting phase." Here's the key points about them that I find scummy:

Panzer
*Seriously votes Mykonia and then tries to back off of it
*Started an unproductive discussion about whether to go after the sk or the mafia
*Attacked GIEFF for tunnel vision rather than dealing with the attack
*Most seriously, asked why Mykonia was scum in post 350

Mykonia (aka: the unhelpful, it burns)
I'll flesh this out soon, but mostly I was bothered by him describing what had happened rather than providing analysis. I also see signs of unhelpful opportunism

"soon" has come and gone, and still no fleshing. I guess you found a softer target in B_B?

vote Beyond_Birthday
I now think that BB is the most likely scum.

Defending scummy play by calling yourself lazy/stupid is unhelpful. This wasn't the first time BB did so. It looks to me like scum trying to pre-empt discussion of their scummy behavior.

Another instance of admitting to anti-town behavior instead of explaining it. You can't just ask us to write off your scummy behavior.

These are literally all the accusations you have made in this thread: not a lot more text than the text you have spent defending Zilla.


It is also odd that you say mykonian and Panzer are the scummiest, yet you hop on the B_B wagon without presenting any original reasons, probably because it looks like an easy lynch.

The same players are driving the Zilla wagon that were driving the B_B wagon; where was this "scum-driven wagon" excuse then?

You have been excessively lurky, your predecessor dropped off the map after being accused of being scummy, and now you are defending a Zilla wagon for reasons that would have applied equally well to the B_B wagon, onto which you QUICKLY hopped without writing a single word about him prior to that point.

Hello, scum. Meet my vote.

unvote

vote qwints

Zilla, I would very much like to hear what you think about my above post.

[GIEFF]

If qwints is scum, then Zilla is more likely to be scum.

But scum can irrationally defend both townies AND scum, so qwints flipping scum wouldn't 100% implicate Zilla.

[GIEFF]

I would like to hear qwints respond to me before I respond to you, Goat.

[GIEFF]

Do you guys really think that I voted qwints because he didn't agree?

Re-read my post. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation.

[GIEFF]

The same players are driving the Zilla wagon that were driving the B_B wagon; where was this "scum-driven wagon" excuse then?

Still waiting, qwints.

[GIEFF]

Thanks, Dourgrim. If you have time, could you also respond to my post 478, especially the part about my post 224 and the 1-4 numbering?

[GIEFF]

It does make more sense, but if you change the words "a B_B lynch is a bad idea" to "a B_B lynch is less viable, to the extent that I will unvote" then I think my point is valid.

My general point is just that the WIFOM you used to justify your unvote of B_B was injected BY B_B HIMSELF, and should therefore not be taken into consideration, at least not to the extent that you did.


I also still don't agree that this WIFOM makes B_B's lynch any less viable. So what if he's linked to Zilla? I thought that links were good things? If B_B and Zilla are both town, and we blindly lynch one after the other flips town, then of course that is horrible play. Why didn't you make a similar point about the myko and Panzer? Is there a reason to fear Zilla and B_B both being town MORE than you fear myko and Panzer both being town?

[GIEFF]

Some points are quite valid.

Which ones in particular?

I actually think putting pressure on him

may

be a good idea,

though

he strikes me more as an uninvested player more than anything, a perfect scapegoat for ambitious scum. The problem is that he hasn't contributed much to judge it on. People make mistakes,

but

it's all about the intent and cause of those mistakes, and, again, I haven't heard enough from him to see whether his intent is pro- or anti-town.

The wishy-washiness is dripping off of this post. Please re-read all of qwints' and macavity's posts (shouldn't take more than 2 minutes), re-read my case, and commit to how you feel. If some points I raised are valid, then doesn't that mean he is more scummy than neutral in your eyes?


-------------------------

qwints, I'll need to see more of a response than "GIEFF is attacking me for disagreeing." It makes no sense at all to think that, of two wagons that were driven by the same two people, one is valid enough to deserve your vote and one is "driven by scum."

-------

You're mixing two separate ideas here. I didn't use the WIFOM to justify the unvote, I simply moved my vote from BB to Panzer because I stated in the above quote that I thought players should be voting for their #1 suspect, and I believed Panzer to be more scummy than BB because of the lie, etc.

Dourgrim: I assumed that your first two paragraphs laid out the reasoning for the conclusions you made in your third and fourth paragraphs in this post. Is this assumption wrong?

I also assumed that a large part of the reason you unvoted B_B was the logic you put out in that post. That post was the first time you brought up any problems with a possible B_B lynch, and the first time since you voted B_B that you said you think Panzer would be a better lynch.

Again, were the first two paragraphs unrelated to the conclusions you made in the 3rd (B_B lynch has problems with it) and 4th (Panzer lynch is best)?

[GIEFF]

The same players are driving the Zilla wagon that were driving the B_B wagon; where was this "scum-driven wagon" excuse then?

Still waiting, qwints.

Still waiting, qwints.

[GIEFF]

Although B_B was the first to vote Zilla, he did not "launch the attack", although I guess I can believe that is what you meant. Why didn't you just say this the first time I asked it, instead of making me ask it three times?

What were Goat and I looking for when we followed the "scum-driven" wagon?

[GIEFF]

I don't feel like I'm nitpicking. You voted B_B, and at the time I believed it was because you thought he was the scummiest player. You presented reasons in the Zilla-WIFOM post that seemed to convince you the B_B lynch was no longer the best one. Whatever you want to call it. And then you later voted for Panzer.

It just looks to me like you had decided to unvote B_B due to logic that seemed so odd I didn't think it was genuine. Has Panzer always been your top choice for a lynch, even after you voted B_B? If not, at what point did he pass up B_B?

[GIEFF]

I think this is getting dangerously close to talking too-much and overthinking this first lynch.

It is just a coincidence that you said this soon after my post about qwints, or was it related?

[GIEFF]

"Whatever you want to call it" because anything you want to call it is fine with me; I don't mean to misrepresent. Call it something, and I'll agree. You list reasons against a B_B lynch, and that's all that's really relevant for the point I'm trying to make.

I do play the game similarly. There is no +x%, -x%, no formula. But I usually know who my top target is. You said Panzer has been your top target the whole time, though right? And that answered my question.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

[GIEFF]

But this statement is also misrepresentative of what I said because

I was not at any point reasoning against a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger

, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

Because it's not what you actually said.

See bold below:

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the

problem

here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However,

the worst part about it

is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means

we could end up mislynching twice in a row

based on

a crappy WIFOM decision

if we just blindly followed.

Bad Town play.

Here's

the other problem

I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists.

How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we

avoid the WIFOM problem

with you vs. Zilla and yet

still pursue a valid lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

It is clear that you FIRST present reasons why the B_B lynch is less-than-ideal, and THEN say "OK now that I've established your case is not as 'solid' (your word), let's go back to my other two cases, GIEFF and Panzer." Then you rule out a GIEFF lynch, and therefore settle on Panzer. You said yourself that the first 2 paragraphs informed the conclusion of the 3rd, and your first 2 paragraphs are riddled with reasons why you don't find the B_B to be as solid.

So I disagree with your assertion that you just found Panzer more scummy. This looks like process of elimination-type logic to me, with Panzer being the only one left. And I found it scummy because I don't agree at ALL with the logic you used to find the B_B lynch less "solid," and I get the feeling you don't either, especially based on your inability to be truthful about your reasons for unvoting.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

I did not fail to answer it.

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It is relevant because I found it scummy. Yes, I genuinely believe you may be scum, as I said before.

------------

Goat, I am not "going back" to Dourgrim, I am just responding to his response of a question I asked about 6 pages ago.

Now that qwints has responded, could you answer my question?

Waiting for Zilla to respond to my latest post about which points of my case she thinks are valid, and why, if they are indeed valid, they left qwints as neutral in her eyes.
------
I don't think it's time for Zilla to claim yet. She still needs one more "potential" vote. Nobody actually vote her, just express your intention to do so (if you have that intention).

---

good post though, I agree with your question on GIEFF, again a: "I don't agree with you and here you are scummy"-vote.

I'm sorry if it feels that way to you, but it is not the case at all.

[GIEFF]

I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer.

Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla.

Are you really trying to claim that the below quote by you is talking about a Zilla lynch, not a B_B lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for

your lynch

based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

You are talking about a B_B lynch here when you say "your lynch." You cannot convince me otherwise. You are talking about why lynching B_B is a bad idea here, too. You cannot convince me otherwise.

If you continue to try to do so, you are not being truthful, whether intentionally or not. Does ANYBODY think the above quote is NOT talking about reasons why a B_B lynch is less-than-ideal? Or even that it's not talking about B_B? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?


So I will repeat the question; why did you immediately fall back to either me or Panzer/myko, ignoring B_B? Even if you really were talking about Zilla the whole time (which you obviously were not), you STILL decided to ignore B_B and focus on either me or myko/Panzer, even though B_B was who you were voting for at the time. This was the original point I raised back in Post 469.

Why did you try to make it a binary choice (read: false dilemma) between me and the myko/Panzer connection if B_B was still #2 on your scumlist? If you wanted to make it a binary choice, shouldn't it have been between B_B and Panzer?

-----------------------

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You find the conversation relevant to my scumminess because you find it scummy. I was asking you why you find it scummy.

I found it scummy because it looked like you threw up some horrible reasons for not wanting to pursue a B_B lynch, and because you disagreed so vehemently with me saying that you were pointing out reasons against a B_B lynch (which seemed clear as day to me, and still does, and should to everybody else, too).

I also didn't like your claims that you were not trying to lead the town, and the way you voted Panzer, as if you were trying to give an excuse for doing so. "Well, I said this, so I'd better be consistent; my hands are tied!" is the vibe I got from it.

Again, I don't think you are going to be the lynch for today, and I don't want you to be, but when I see scummy behavior, I'm not going to just ignore it. If I get killed tonight, I want this information out there for the town to analyze in my absence.

------------

Zilla, you are very likely going to be lynched shortly, so if you are town, you should be trying to post as much as possible, getting people to react to the idea of your lynch, and answering people's questions. The more information we have about a lynchee the better, as you have said yourself.

You can start with my question about which points in my qwints case were valid, and why you don't have anything but a neutral read on him if you do indeed think they are valid.

[GIEFF]

I don't like that Birthday was in a similar situation and got off without a claim though, even when GIEFF (falsely) asserted that he was at L-2 when he was at L-3.

And I STILL don't think you should claim. We are still one short vote of a lynch. At no point were 7 people saying they would lynch B_B, and at no point have 7 people said they would lynch you. A claim is bad if we don't later lynch that person, as if more than one person claims, we may be unnecessarily revealing power roles to the scum. It makes sense to be sure we really have enough votes for a lynch to go through before a claim happens, right? And I believe you are still 1 vote away.

------------

Yes, the last quote above is indeed referring to the BB/Zilla situation, but you're misinterpreting it. I'm merely suggesting that the entire situation be tabled in favor of what I believed was a stronger case.

And I feel you are linking B_B and Zilla unnecessarily. The original case on B_B, and the reasoning you presented at the time of your vote for B_B was not based on Zilla's alignment. The connection to Zilla was created by B_B himself, and you bought into it.

However, this actually is an accurate summary of your case for once, except that it's not the same as what you've been saying up to this point (surprise, surprise!). I was saying that I believed Panzer to be a more ideal lynch than BB, correct, but I was not arguing against a BB lynch; these are different and separate ideas. I felt that BB was a valid lynch choice but not the ideal one.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written? That will answer about 80% of your questions in this regard, I think.

Yes, I do, but you are descending into semantics now. As I said before, it doesn't matter how it's phrased; you listed some things, and then explained why those things made a BB lynch less-than-ideal. Whether you think it's a bad lynch or just a less-than-ideal lynch is not relevant to the point I was trying to make, which is why I said "whatever you want to call it." You're right that your actual position on B_B is important, and I'm sorry if I misrepresented it, but either way, it is not relevant to the general point I was making (which is summarized by my bolded sentence below).

Because I was suggesting that we table (not ignore) the BB/Zilla discussion in favor of a more established case, which left me with two other cases I felt strongly about: you and Panzer/myko.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

Yes, I do.

I still think B_B's Zilla-WIFOM should not have been enough to dissuade you from his lynch, if you were being genuine in your initial vote for him.

The WIFOM has nothing to do with the reasons you originally presented, and if you really thought he was scummy, I don't think you would have let WIFOM that he himself injected make you discount so heavily the fact that he refused to defend himself that you no longer feel he should be the lynch candidate for today, instead focusing on me and myko/Panzer.

Parroting my call for other players to weigh in on the conversation with your witty sarcasm is unproductive.

It may not be productive, but this is a game, and it should be fun. I'm trying to lighten the mood a bit.

OK, this makes sense to me: you disagreed with my logic and found it scummy (IMHO probably because of a failure in communication), but then you cheapen it with the part in parentheses, in which you seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Yes. Anybody who disagrees with me IS obviously wrong. When you said "your lynch" you were talking about B_B, and that is about as close to objective as it gets. You say now that you were talking about BOTH B_B and Zilla, which I can believe, but if you were to claim it wasn't about B_B, it would be an obvious lie.

I was not ignoring BB, I was suggesting we move away from it in favor of a more well-established case against Panzer.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

I understand it, but I disagree. You FIRST said we should move away from the B_B/Zilla situation, and THEN decided that all that was left was me and myko/Panzer. Focusing on Panzer was a result of taking your focus off of BB/Zilla. This is not at all the same as simply finding Panzer scummier. Your unvote of BB seemed to me to be based a lot more on flaws in the BB/Zilla case than new points in the myko/Panzer case.

Again, stop laying your "vibes" on my posts and instead read them literally and in context; I think that will help greatly in our apparent failure to communicate.

OK, I will try. I'm not sure how best to phrase it; would not using quotes be better? I try to link to the posts I'm referring to as much as possible, and I would put down exact quotes for every point, too, if it wouldn't clutter the posts more than they already are.


I'm hoping we can end the quote wars here. Here is my attempt at consensus:

You voted B_B. B_B presented WIFOM for Zilla. You felt this WIFOM was enough of a deterrent to either a B_B or Zilla lynch that you decided to focus on other leads that you yourself were more involved in creating, and that did not contain this degree of WIFOM. Therefore, you settled on Panzer being the best lynch choice for the day, and soon unvoted B_B to vote for Panzer.

Is that correct? The only problem I have with your behavior is the fact that the WIFOM was enough to get you to change your mind, but this is not so major a point that we should continue to quote-war each other. Can we agree that I find it mildly scummy, you think it isn't scummy, and move on? If you wish, I will let you have the last quote-war if I can restrain myself from responding.

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: why do you think Qwints is a lynch candidate while Dour is not? Aside from your vote, neither have any votes on them.

I do not think qwints is a lynch candidate, although I do find his behavior scummy. I wanted to see how you would react to pressure on him (and also to see how he would react to pressure on himself), as this information will be valuable if you come up scum.

In fact, almost all of your case on him is based on his inactivity and playstyle, which would be

fixed

with more contribution.

Fixed for the town, fixed for scum, or fixed for qwints?

----------


Zilla, I still feel that you are today's best lynch, and you can consider my vote one of the 7 needed for a lynch, and one of the 7 needed to prompt a claim from you. This should answer others' questions about my qwints-vote, too.

I don't think Dourgrim is a lynch candidate either, and while I find some of his behavior scummy, the amount of conversation we generate is not directly proportional to the degree to which I think he is scum. He is not in my top 3, nor is qwints.


----

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a towny because the game dies before we can change.

What did you mean by this, mykonian? Were you referring to Zilla when you said "lynching a towny?"

[GIEFF]

Oh, and sorry to distract from matters, but

FOS: Mykonian

for the "lynching a townie" thing. His whole stance so far seems to be scum trying to gain the benefit from a town flip. It's blatantly obvious, to the point that I'd say he's my second suspect again.

This isn't the first time he had a "townie" slip (although people don't seem to think these are important, I very much do).

and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).

Yes that was the answer I would expect: it was the assumption that spring was scum that would make them town. As the whole post is build to accuse spring, the assumption is that she is scum. Could be a slip though, but it is not conclusive.

So mykonian agrees that "townie" slips can be scummy, unless they are part of another assumption, i.e. a "nested reality."

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch

.

This is you referring to Panzer.

You later said

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum.

Bogus. Nobody can be so sure that someone is scum that they make nested assumptions based on the universe where that person is scum. But it is based on the assumption I am scum, which you said may explain away the scumminess of a "townie" slip.

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I just gave you scum motivations for her actions, and likewise showed the lack of possible town motivations. Thoughts on those?

I know I can't argue with this, but I have seen this too often:

two townies

that go after each other, pointing out that the other doesn't understand them the right way.

Goat and Zilla are townies, huh? Where is the assumption here? There is none. You yourself said this is a scumtell.

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a

towny

because the game dies before we can change.

The SECOND time you referred to Zilla as a towny. There is no nested assumption here, either.

This is stretching the limits of coincidence.


I believe mykonian flipping scum would make me quite confident that Zilla and Goat are town, and very confident that Panzer is town as well, even though I find two of these players so scummy right now.



And before you all say "slips are meaningless" let me point something out to you. With every single post mafia make, they are trying to hide the fact that they KNOW who is mafia and who isn't. EVERY time a mafia mentions Zilla, he KNOWS her alignment. It is not far-fetched to think that with thousands and thousands of words being written, two or three of them reveal the fact that the author knows more than he or she should. Calling someone a townie is NOT minor, especially when the SAME person is called town twice.

[GIEFF]

Then the claim part: if she is town, and we know it after her claim (I don't know, but her claim could explain everything, etc, it is a possibility), we got to have the possibility to change the votes to someone else.

That's ridiculous. Why would you even talk about the possibility that we KNOW she's town after her claim? What could that possibly explain that would make us so sure?

[GIEFF]

He clearly means that the claims is such that she can't be lynched on day 1.

Clearly?

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a towny because the game dies before we can change.

He says that WITHOUT a Zilla-claim, we are lynching a Zilla-townie.


Care to revise your statement, qwints?

[GIEFF]

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 51#1487551
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 78#1492078
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 79#1495479
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 08#1498508
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 92#1505092

------

Ok, I've skipped over every post by Gieff and Dourgrim, This arguement is totally unnecessary and superfluous. It looks like two pro-town players having a pissing contest.

What? I thought I was third on your scumlist, behind Zilla and B_B? When did your assessment of me change to "pro-town player?"

[GIEFF]

I think I understand what you are saying, mykonian. You are saying that calling Zilla towny WAS part of a nested assumption, i.e. it is bad if we lynch Zilla pre-claim ONLY if she is a townie?

Do you think qwints' post accurately summarizes your intent?

What do you mean by the game dying?

and I see you have found another scumslip with panzer: congrats. Care to talk about your Dourscum-slip?

Slips are relevant because they reveal more about what is going on inside your head than you meant to reveal. I wrote Dourscum because I was thinking that he was scum at the time I was writing the post. I am not denying this. I DID think Dourgrim was scum at the time I wrote the post. Are you bringing this up AGAIN because you really think it's valid, or are you bringing it up because you think I am being hypocritical? I find the two types of slip very different, so I don't feel I am being hypocritical.

Slips where you call people townies are VERY different. They aren't just brainfarts; they reveal that you know more about the person's role than you should.

-------------------

I don't think we can replace SL, as she continues to pick up her prods.

[GIEFF]

All because you assume that townies can't make them just as easily.

This is where we disagree strongly. Townies CANNOT make slips of that nature just as easily, because they don't have any extra information they have to pretend not to have.

about SL: annoying. Very much. Can I propose a policy lynch? There are worse times to do it then day 1.

There has been too much scummy behavior today to fall back on a policy lynch instead. I think you are one of the only players who has trouble finding people are scummy.

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

I wish I could lynch two or three people instead of just one. I don't get why you don't see much evidence of scummy behavior in the last 28 pages.


I agree we need to decide on a lynch soon. 28 pages is too long for a day 1.

----

Goat, I'd like to see as concise a summary as possible of your case on Zilla.

[GIEFF]

Again, it was not my intention to distract from the Zilla discussion. I asked Dourgrim a question many pages ago, and he just recently got around to answering it.

I don't see the conciliatory tone, and I do still think she is scum. I have not re-voted her because she is at L-2, and I have recently realized that there are a number of things I don't like about this lynch (although these do not negate Zilla's scummy behavior).

• I don't like the way Dourgrim hopped on the wagon after I hopped off. I thought you wanted to avoid the WIFOM in a Zilla lynch, Dourgrim?
• I don't like the way Panzer hopped on the wagon after I hopped off, especially the fact that he APOLOGIZED to Goat while doing so, and when looking at his recent voting history (see below).
• I don't like that both of these hops on the wagon happened at least partly due to being convinced by Goat.
• I don't like that Goat is now trying to get me back on the wagon.
• I don't like the fact that mykonian has TWICE called Zilla a townie.
• I don't like Panzer saying "we are in danger of overthinking this lynch" after I hopped off.
• I don't like the fact that the very first person to vote Zilla was B_B, in the midst of him failing to defend himself against accusations.

I would like to see a concise summary of your case on Zilla, Goat. It will help me decide if Zilla's scumminess outweighs the problems I see with lynching her. Consider my support withdrawn for now; I do not want Zilla to claim yet.

For those on the Zilla wagon now; how much more do you support a Zilla lynch than you would a B_B lynch? I think they are similarly scummy, yet the Zilla lynch has some issues that the B_B lynch does not.

unvote qwints

Panzer's recent voting history:

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday, Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday Post 265
Unvote:Zilla, Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday Post 296
Unvote. Vote:Zilla Post 298
Unvote, Vote:Beyond_Birthday Post 433
Unvote:Vote:Zilla. Post 623

Any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me.

To me.

*cue piano*

[GIEFF]

I'm calling for a Cease Fire, until Zilla claims. I refuse to read anypost in between Now and Zilla's claim(or refusal to do so)

No. Emphatically no. Scummy, scummy, scummy. Once there is a claim, it is difficult to turn back. Making two people claim is worse for the town than just making one person claim.

You don't care who we choose to lynch between Zilla or B_B, right Panzer?

[GIEFF]

I'm trying to get you to take a stance. You unvoted her to vote someone you aren't even interested in lynching. I think it's scummy and ridiculous that you backed off a wagon on someone you think is scum at 5 votes.

I believe I backed off at 4 votes. Two people have voted since I unvoted, and Zilla has 5 votes on her now, right? I've already explained my reasoning for voting qwints; I wanted to see how Zilla would respond to the vote. At the time I voted qwints, I had every intention of switching back to Zilla after I saw how she reacted to it. The fact that two people jumped on the wagon before I could made me hesitate, first because she was at L-2 and I didn't want to put her at L-1 incase somebody pre-claim quick-hammered, and later because of the reasons I listed above.

People have said that we shouldn't lynch people who don't have connections, and I feel I have revealed a connection between qwints and Zilla. Based on their interaction after my vote for qwints, I believe that if we lynch Zilla and she flips scum, qwints is a lot more likely to be scum.

This is why I couldn't say this at the time, and why I wanted to hear Zilla and qwints respond before I explained it. If I said my vote was just for reaction-fishing, no reactions would have been caught.

Both of those take a more conversational tone, and the first one sounds almost resigned to the idea of a Zilla lynch. Also, I note you stopped trying to convince others to lynch Zilla and have instead moved towards discussion of "what if Zilla is town" and "we need info in case Zilla is town" type posts.

No matter her alignment, the more she posts while her bandwagon builds, the better. The more people she interacts with the better. Going back through the thread and re-reading after more people's alignments are known is HUGELY beneficial to the town, and I am just trying to maximize that. If we Zilla is town and we lynch her, I want to get as much information out of it as possible, and so I am trying to get her to create some, as I hopefully did with my qwints-vote.

The second quote of mine was meant to explain that at no point did I think qwints was a better lynch than Zilla. It was not a vote meant to lead to a lynch, it was a vote to gain information.

And yes, I want to lynch Zilla, so I'm trying to convince people to vote for her. Is that somehow scummy? I recall you trying to convince Zilla that her vote was wasted on me.

No, I don't think it's scummy. I just don't like it. I see the pro-town reasons for doing it, but I would feel more comfortable if it was somebody who was not as pissed off at Zilla as you are. I think emotion may have been at least a partial factor in my initial Zilla vote, so I'd find it hard to believe that it is not at least somewhat to blame for your current desire to lynch Zilla.

If a number of people on the Zilla wagon are there in part due to you, this is bad for the town if either you are scum, or a townie who finally let his emotions get the better of him. I agree that Zilla's behavior is genuinely scummy, but I am not sure it is scummier than B_B's, and I think emotion may be the deciding factor. Just because Zilla's behavior was more recent than B_B's does not make it scummier.


Goat, are you opposed to a B_B lynch? If not, how much more in favor of a Zilla lynch are you than a B_B lynch?

You seem to be trying to pressure or manipulate what Panzer feels he needs to write before he has written it although I am not defending him.

It is almost a rhetorical question, as I am sure the answer is yes, based on his voting history. He has switched his voted between Zilla and BB

five times

.




I agree this day has dragged on too long, but I don't think that means we should rush the lynch. mykonian appears to want a Zilla claim, but as I no longer do, we still need one more person to ask for the Zilla claim before I would be comfortable with her giving it.

And I would prefer we switch to Beyond_Birthday. militant said he will review B_B's case to make his decision, but I would also like to hear from Goat, Panzer, and Dourgrim about how they feel about switching from Zilla to B_B.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

[GIEFF]

I am opposed. I think Zilla is scum, and if Zilla is scum I think BB is much more likely to be town than scum.

But isn't the reverse true? If BB is scum, then isn't Zilla much more likely to be town than scum?

And what if you just focused on level of scumminess, all WIFOM and informational considerations aside? Is Zilla far above B_B on the scummy-scale, in your opinion?

Emotion is not a factor behind my vote. If it was, I would have voted her far earlier.

If there is one main person driving a wagon and trying to get votes for it (and succeeding), I would be more comfortable if that person wasn't the one who was attacked for pages and pages and pages by the lynch candidate. Even if you are a townie who truly believes you are not at all influenced by emotion, you very well could be, and just not realize it.

Looking at my own behavior, Dourgrim and I are both still sort of pissed at each other, Zilla didn't look as scummy to me until she was doing to me what she did to you, and my vote for B_B didn't come until after he exploded at me and Zilla. I like to think of myself as unemotional and logical as possible, but it's not possible to completely divorce emotion from logic.

I kept an objective as an outlook as I could to try to keep my constant frustration with Zilla from clouding my judgment.

I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds. Let us begin:

That is not the way a player with an objective outlook posts.

----------

don't understand Gieff's reversal over the past 5 pages since he only unvoted Zilla to pressure and pursue to a point young qwints. His unvote failed to revote Zilla, but it seems that he is stating he has a reason to doubt the Zilla lynch without reason. He then asks Goat for his case, while ignoring the validity of mine. He doesn't provide any reason why my case isn't good enough anymore.

I'll try to explain it again, although I understand why you would not like me considering switching from Zilla to you, regardless of your alignment.

I had every intention of revoting Zilla when I switched to qwints. However, before I got the reactions I was looking for, Zilla was placed at L-2. So, just as I did with you, I didn't want to put Zilla at L-1, to avoid a quick-hammer. This is why I didn't re-vote Zilla, but DID state that the Zilla lynch still had my support.

And I know that YOU already knew this about me, as you quoted it yourself in post 548, which you just referenced. In fact, in that very post, you said it was scummy for Zilla to put you at L-1, yet now you don't like the fact that I didn't put Zilla at L-1. That is not consistent.

Only recently, after reading back through the thread again, have I rethought my actual support of the Zilla wagon. As soon as mykonian threw his support behind a Zilla claim, I realized that if I was to back off my support, I had to do it soon, as once Zilla claims, switching then becomes much worse for the town.

He doesn't provide any reason why my case isn't good enough anymore.

I would be happy to see a summary of your case, too. I asked for Goat's instead of yours because Goat has been the one gathering votes for the Zilla-wagon, because you are my preferred lynch candidate, and because Goat's case was more convincing than yours. I remember you said that you KNEW Zilla was scum because you got her to back off; can you explain what you mean by that in your summary of your Zilla-case?

Also, my initial vote for Zilla was not based on what you said in Post 548, B_B. While my vote did appear immediately after your post 548, note that it appeared just two minutes after your post - not enough time for me to have read it, digested it, agreed with it, and decided to switch my vote.

My vote was based on my own reasons (more reasons in post 528), and Goat's post 534.

What pushed me over the edge to vote for Zilla was her post where she voted you, B_B. Not only was she trying to appease me, which is scummy in and of itself, but she was doing it poorly. My suspicion was based on her saying you were scummy, yet all but ignoring you. Yet even when she voted you, she didn't say a single thing about you besides "you continue to look scummy as the game progresses." I found that completely ridiculous, and it showed me that she didn't really think you were scummy. If so, she would have said SOMETHING about you. She was just trying to

appear

to find you scummy. See below for context.

But I did realize something; Goat really isn't going anywhere, and we'll at least have more information on him post-day 1. Birthday continues to look scummy as the game progresses. Panzer's off lurking, which is pretty terrible in these conditions, and I'd definately like to hear more from him before the day ends.

Unvote: Goatrevolte --- IGMEOY
Vote: Beyond Birthday

[GIEFF]

Dourgrim and Panzer; how do you feel about switching from Zilla to B_B?

-----
I tried as hard as I could not to bring this up, but I have to. I will keep it as brief as possible.

And, for the record, your statement of "you cannot convince me otherwise" (used twice in the post) says to me, plain and simple, that you have no business playing Mafia. If you're really so tunnel-visioned that you can't possibly be swayed away from your preconceptions of what other people's words actually mean, you're a poor player, good logic or no.

I think the "Dourscum" thing was significant despite his repeated claims that it was an honest mistake. I refuse to believe it's even possible for that to be an honest mistake.

Please listen to the yourself of a few pages ago. Your first quote describes your second perfectly.

You need to open your mind. This is ridiculous.

Not sure about GIEFF still, but I think most of that is because I was in his crosshairs for so long before. There's still the "Dourscum" thing,

but that's not really enough to base a case on.

Agreed. I don't want you to bring up the Dourscum thing again unless it is part of a bigger case and it is accompanied by you voting for me. It is upsetting me, and I do not play logically when I am upset.




Dourgrim, what has changed since you made this post:

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

If you thought Zilla was a better lynch a few pages ago, why are you now back on Panzer?

[GIEFF]

gieff wrote:

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

Of course I knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself. This post was meant to demonstrate the fact that Zilla was NOT actually confident that she caught two or three scum, and that her statement was one of scummy self-preservation, not one she actually felt was true. Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question, giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.



I still don't want Zilla to claim, but we have 7 people demanding she do so, so she now needs to.

[GIEFF]

HoS springlullaby

.

Is your keyboard only broken for this game?

These are your last two posts in ANY game, both less than an hour before your latest here.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... t=#1509590
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 19#1509519

[GIEFF]

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

[GIEFF]

So you no longer want Zilla to claim, mykonian? If we aren't lynching Zilla today, she SHOULD NOT CLAIM.

You are all treating a Zilla-claim far too casually. If you don't want to lynch her, then don't make her claim.

[GIEFF]

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

I definitely want to see a claim before we lynch somebody. I don't want to see a claim because I would rather lynch B_B, as I have said numerous times. I find it hard to believe you are really so confused as to think I want to lynch Zilla without a claim. As I JUST said, it looks like Zilla will be the lynch today, so that even though I am personally against a Zilla-claim, she should do so.


This is the second time you have been SO convinced I am scum that you have called the target of my aggression townie. You've done it with Panzer, and now you've done it with Zilla. I think these are slips by scum, revealing more than you should, but you have claimed that you only called them townie because you are so certain I am scum.

If you were SO sure I'm scum that you are making nested assumptions on other players' alignments based on your assumption that I am scum, you would be voting me, and trying to make a case on me to get others to do so, too.

Is anybody else in the game so sure of another player's alignment that you are ready to call the people that player attacks townies?

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

"WAS" being the operative word, considering your switch to springlullaby.

[GIEFF]

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.
   
   subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.
   
   
3. In Zilla's next post, she doesn't specifically address ANYTHING that either Goat or subgenius said. If Zilla really felt these reasons were valid, I feel she would have shown some disagreement, instead of just ignoring them. At the end of this post, she says:
   

   That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

   A new reason is presented, although the previous reasons were shown to be faulty (yet not addressed by Zilla). This is the "extending the case" accusation, in action. It is odd that you say NOBODY owns their case, yet present this as a reason for voting for Goat. Why not apply it to anybody else?
   
   
4. mykonian says, again, that your vote of Goat makes no sense.
   
   militant agrees that your initial reasons are bad, and calls your latest reason (the "case-extender") "laughable."
   
   Beyond_Birthday also tells Zilla why he doesn't agree with her logic.
   
   
   If I had 5 players telling me my reasons for voting somebody were ridiculous, I would either try to refute them, or drop the case. Zilla did neither.
   
   
   
5. In Zilla's next post, instead of explaining why she thinks her previous 4 reasons really are valid, and why the 5 people telling her they are NOT valid are all wrong, she comes up two more reasons (e. "aggressively defensive" and f. "he just switched is vote for poor reasons").
   

   Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).
   
   Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

   Again, this is Zilla extending her case. She presented some reasons when she initially voted Goat. These were shot down. She didn't respond to the fact that they were shot down, and simply threw out a new reason. This new reason was also shot down, and instead of responding, she threw out TWO MORE reasons. Double-case extension.
   
   
6. In Goat's next post, he resonds to all of Zilla's accusations.
   
   And in Zilla's "long, boring post" is when the first accusations of misrepresentation start. Many of Zilla's responses to Goat in this post don't respond to what Goat is saying, but simply say "that is false and a misrepresentation" and ignore the point that was trying to be made.
   
   I didn't notice Zilla doing this until she did it to me, but reading back carefully now, it is as clear as day. And from that point forward, the back-and-forth between Goat and Zilla deteriorated into a he-said, she-said morass of quotes, misrepresentations, attacks, emotions, and unreadable wall-o-texts (which just means a big wall of text, i.e. a very long post).

I have no desire to summarize the rest of the Zilla-Goat interactions, but I'm pretty confident that the above is an accurate representation of what happened initially, and shows very clearly what is meant by the "extending your case" argument, i.e. Zilla's inital vote for Goat was "shot down, and instead of re-evaluating her case, she came up with new reasons and started deflecting.


Do you disagree with anything I've said here, Zilla? Anybody else?


----------

I'll try to get the summary of my case up, but I'm not going to guarantee anything. This would be an excellent time for those who are lurking to join us, though.

Please try to get something up soon. I asked you for a summary a long time ago.

[GIEFF]

Fos Gieff

I've concluded that if Zilla is scum you are. You voted for Zilla several pages ago with little mention of any intent to lynch me. Now, suddenly, you think that lynching me is superior to lynching Zilla whle backing no proof. The great part is that you have made several points against Zilla.

Short form: You are indecisive. You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid. You are not because you are disagreeing with yourself. I conclude you are therefore mafia for contradicting your own theory on play.

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

First of all, I don't believe you ever responded to by Post 690, which should clear some of this up, and in which I ask you some questions.

What has changed between Post 690 and now that caused you to FOS me? Why have you ignored the points I raised and the questions I asked in my post 690? Your FOS looks like OMGUS self-preservation to me.

I still find Zilla quite scummy, and seeing her lynched would be an acceptable day 1 outcome to me. I would just prefer to lynch you, as I find you just as scummy, if not scummier, and your lynch does not have the same problems with it that I see in a Zilla lynch. See Post 681 for a list of the problems I see with the lynch. I know you didn't miss this post, so I don't understand why you are pretending not to know why I would prefer to lynch you. I have been quite clear about my reasoning.

You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid.

I did no such thing. Show me where I did this.

Link and quote,

or you're a damned dirty liar. I wish I had some extra "misrepresentation+"'s to throw at you, but Zilla has exhausted the supply.

Short form: You are indecisive.

Yes, I am. I find both you and Zilla scummy, but I think that you (B_B) are the best lynch, based on problems I see with the Zilla-wagon.

I also think springlullaby is likely to be scum, based on her lie about her keyboard not working, even though she didn't mention this in any of her other games (in which she is quite active). Panzer and mykonian still strike me as quite scummy.

I see a lot of scummy behavior, a lot of good lynch-targets, so it's difficult to make up my mind. If you want to explain why that is scummy, then go ahead, but if you're going to try to use my own scum-hunting theory against me, please attempt to understand it first.

-----

Thank you, Goat; that is very clear, especially with the links to posts.

[GIEFF]

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.

I don't believe he really does answer the accusation that he's not accountable in that post. He answers everything with *gasp* a deflection! (Go read the thread).

Why should Goat talk about being accountable in this post, when it is 20 posts before you first mention the word? If you were reading back with truth as your objective (as opposed to making Goat look scummy as your objective), you would not have made a mistake this obvious.

subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.

He makes some good points, but there's the whole debate on "reading without a summary" that I don't agree with; as if players providing a summary somehow control my perception of the thread; as if I have to believe anything anyone says to me.

This is typical of your behavior throughout the thread. You say "he makes some good points, but..." and then focus on one point only. The other points are extremely valid, and you IGNORED them, instead making up new reasons to justify your Goat-vote.

And if you didn't agree with that point, why didn't you respond?

You can't just ignore points that demonstrate flaws in your reasoning. You must either refute them, or revise your opinion.

Failing to do either of these two things is anti-town, and it is behavior you have shown repeatedly throughout the thread.

He claims I'm voting him for his bad vote on Macavity, when I'm voting him for refusing to re-justify it.

But this again is you focusing un-necessarily on Goat. Had you chosen to initially attack someone else, and then ask them to revise a previous case, you would have likely been met with a similar response: "go read the thread." You focus unnaturally on Goat.

Possible scum-motivation: confuse the town with long posts, avoid having to take stances on a lot of players.

Possible town-motivation: you were really upset that people didn't like your ideas, so you attacked the first of them, and let your emotions get the better of you.


Either way, it is bad play, yet I find it difficult to believe a townie would focus so unnaturally on one player, even after I tried to warn you LONG ago that your incessant attention on Goat was anti-town, and would not lead to a lynch.


----------

Finally, look at the post she links to. Within that very post, this is what she says about GIEFF:

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Then compare that with her statement above that GIEFF and dour were locked in a struggle with each other and hardly commenting on the rest of the game.

Contradiction ahoy. Zilla is scum.

misrepresentation++ (oh look, I found some extra +'s lying around!)

In the quoted post, Zilla wasn't saying she believed that about me, she was demonstrating the fact that a case could be made about every player in the game.

It looks to me like you misrepresented that post on purpose, Goat. Reading it in context makes it pretty clear what Zilla was trying to do.

She even says at the end of that post:

This is not my standing on everyone

, but an exercise to see where cases "can" be built, to show that scum don't even have to actively push for a lynch as long as a townie gets

the wrong idea

about someone.

(Emphasis mine)

-----

My only assumption is that you agreed with the following. If this is true, how did my lynch suddenly become better? You EVEN say that I don't need to claim, so I just don't see your big push for my lynch being better until recently.

Your assumption is incorrect, as I have already stated. Your "case" had absolutely nothing to do with my vote for Zilla. I have later explained the reasoning behind my Zilla-vote, and I should have at the time.

You're right; you don't see the big push for your lynch being better until recently, because the problems with Zilla's lynch (that I outline in post 681) didn't arise (or I didn't notice them) until recently.

Respond to Post 735, and Post 690, and acknowledge that you have read Post 681.

I also realized that the following quote by you should be seen as a threat. It is informing me that if I successfully de-rail the Zilla wagon, then your vote will be on me. Or am I reading it wrong?

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

------

Panzer, it is time to end your Zilla-claim post-strike. Zilla is at L-4 now. Find another excuse if you want to lurk.

[joke]Tell you what: I am going on a post-strike until Panzer ends his post-strike. No posts from me until Panzer posts.[/joke]

----

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

As I just told your good buddy Panzer, Zilla is at L-4.

It is again a way of speach: you don't really want a claim, that's why I think you scum, and then I make that colored sentence, questioning your motivations.

That is ridiculous. I DO want a claim from Zilla, but ONLY if we are going to lynch her. This is not a difficult point to understand. I don't want to lynch her, and once she claims, lynching another person is bad for the town, as it may unnecessarily reveal power roles to the scum.

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

Here is some context for you.

Post 352.

Panzer's towniness is now only implied by you being scum.

Post 727

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies.

There. Those are the two times you've done the same thing. You called a player a townie, I called you on it, and your excuse was that you were only calling the player townie because you were so sure I was scum.

Does anybody buy that mykonian can be so sure? Would anybody else do the same? i.e. be sure enough that someone you are attacking is scum that you assume everybody that person attacks is town? What if you had said something like this:

Post 582

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when

I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

So even though I am SO SCUMMY that you are making nested assumptions about who is town, you would no lynch me based on the evidence? Something isn't right here. Which is it? Am I so un-scummy that you would prefer to no-lynch me, or am I so scummy that you are sure about the alignment of Zilla and Panzer because I am attacking them?

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

Oh, you CAN make a case on me, can you? Go for it. You've voted me for reasons you later claimed you were convinced I had answered to your satisfaction, but then you had to make up completely new reasons to vote me again. I'd love to see you try to sort all that out, while remaining somewhat consistent.

What I'd

really

love is for you to vote B_B, but I am realistic in my wishes. If you make such a horribly flawed and inconsistent attempt to make me look scummy that you reveal yourself as scum, then that is just as good.

[GIEFF]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

because there seems to be a majority for her lynch. And I would like a claim

before

the lynch...

Wow. This is ridiculous. Zilla is at L-4. Or did you miss that?

not impressed. GIEFF nitpick against his "targets", goes way too far, and then you get accusations that he is tunneling, as his behaviour against someone doesn't make sense. I think that explains the contradiction partly.

As a very scummy poster recently asked me; please provide context. I will not stand for false generalities. Again, if you don't understand my behavior, I'd be happy to explain it to you, but as you've shown in the past, you are a lot more willing to write off your confusion to me being scummy than to your inability to understand my points.

[GIEFF]

Any of this sound familiar, GIEFF?

NO! I DISAGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY! WE NEVER CLASH!

Dourgrim, what do you think about my analysis into Panzer's meta, that showed that he is more likely to come up with new cases as scum than as town?


---
I see your point now, Goatrevolt; you were not misrepresenting anything, I just misunderstood. I think a better way to demonstrate her flip-flop on me is the fact that Zilla thought I was one of the only two pro-town people up until I started attacking her.


---

The last is a particularly damning tell in my book - this is day 1, I haven't seen many town who would vote for people on the ground that they've been defending them.

Glad you're on the B_B wagon, but I disagree with this bit. Scum defend townies all the time, to link themselves, and to get them on their "side." The fact that Panzer wasn't suspicious of mykonian doing so is actually scummier to me than the fact that B_B WAS suspicious of Zilla doing so.

---

I don't have time right now, but I'll deal with mykonian's ridiculous posts later. They have no bearing in reality whatsoever. If I have time, I'll go through all the untrue and misleading things you've said, mykonian. There are a LOT.

[GIEFF]

No, I get the point. Both things show that her declaration that she saw me as pro-town was not genuine. If she really thought I was pro-town, she would not have so quickly switched to assuming I'm your scumbuddy (the "flip-flop"). If she really thought I was pro-town, she would not have lied.

Two clues that both lead to the same place. Zilla's declaration that she saw me as pro-town was not based on evidence she gathered from the thread; it was based on her decision that to say she sees me as pro-town benefits her.

----

Still waiting for you to respond, B_B.

[GIEFF]

Here is an update to the voting history. I wish there was some code for a box you could click to make the below text appear and disappear, as it may make the thread a bit difficult to read, but I think the information is worth it.

mykonian's history is particularly hilarious.

militant, ting, and subgenius have very little vote-changing. Are you more certain than the rest of us, or do you just not have as much interest in catching scum? ting's vote is still on Panzer, from

post 38.

That is shocking.

I noticed that the script didn't pick up B_B's vote for Panzer; I think this is because it came after too much text ahead of time. The character-limit was reached, I guess. Let me know if you see any other mistakes, please.

By Character

[/size]

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF Post 19
Unvote, Vote:Mykonian Post 36
FoS:Ting Post 44
Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby Post 158
FoS:Gieff Post 225
Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday, Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday Post 265
Unvote:Zilla, Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday Post 296
Unvote. Vote:Zilla Post 298
Unvote, Vote:Beyond_Birthday Post 433
Unvote:Vote:Zilla. Post 623

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager Post 20
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock Post 77
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday Post 285
FoS Zilla Post 524
Unvote, Vote Zilla Post 551

mykonian

vote GIEFF Post 24
unvote, vote GIEFF Post 55
FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim Post 137
vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF Post 241
unvote vote Beyond_birthday Post 251
unvote vote GIEFF Post 312
unvote Post 414
vote GIEFF Post 579

militant

Vote ting =) Post 25
Unvote Post 279
Vote Zilla Post 562

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock Post 26
unvote. Vote:Panzerjager Post 38

qwints

Vote: Dourgrim

(Posted as MacavityLock)

Post 27
Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

(Posted as MacavityLock)

Post 47
Unvote

(Posted as MacavityLock)

Post 125
vote Beyond_Birthday Post 517
FOS: Zilla Post 704

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager Post 28
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 33
FoS: springlullaby Post 40
unvote: GIEFF Post 80
FoS: mykonian, vote: Panzer Post 95
FoS: GIEFF Post 217
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 219
unvote: GIEFF <BR><BR>FoS: GIEFF, vote: Beyond_Birthday, HUGE FoS's: ting =) and qwints, slightly smaller but still pretty big FoS: springlullaby Post 400
medium-sized FoS: subgenius Post 442
unvote: BB <BR><BR>vote: Panzer Post 445
unvote Post 625
vote: Zilla Post 640
unvote: Zilla <BR><BR>vote: Panzerjager Post 691

subgenius

vote:Militant Post 29
FoS: Panzer Post 167
unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager Post 170

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian Post 31
Unvotes Post 71
Unvote Post 234
Vote Zilla Post 384

springlullaby

Vote subgenius Post 39
Vote djekha Post 97
Unvote, vote djekha Post 98
Unvote Post 270

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
FOS Post 275
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297
FOS: Goatrevolt Post 421
FOS'd Post 441
unvote: Mykonian <BR>Vote: Goatrevolt Post 486
Unvote: Goatrevolte, Vote: Beyond Birthday Post 544
unvote: Birthday <BR>vote: Goatrevolt Post 662
FOS: Mykonian Post 663

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim Post 54
FOS Panzerjager Post 96
unvote, Vote Panzerjager Post 105
FoS mykonian Post 193
FoS militant Post 244
Not a random vote, HoS Beyond_Birthday Post 305
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday Post 398
Unvote, Vote Zilla Post 550
Confirm vote Zilla Post 581
unvote, vote qwints Post 608
unvote qwints Post 681
Vote: Beyond_Birthday Post 685

By Chronology

[/size]

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 1

kloud1516

vote: kloud unvote
Post 19

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF
Post 20

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager
Post 24

mykonian

vote GIEFF
Post 25

militant

Vote ting =)
Post 26

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock
Post 27

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 28

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager
Post 29

subgenius

vote:Militant
Post 31

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian
Post 33

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 36

Panzerjager

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian
Post 38

ting =)

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager
Post 39

springlullaby

Vote subgenius
Post 40

Dourgrim

FoS: springlullaby
Post 44

Panzerjager

FoS:Ting
Post 46

dejkha

FoS: Dourgrim
Post 47

MacavityLock

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer
Post 54

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 55

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF
Post 71

Beyond_Birthday

Unvotes
Post 77

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Post 80

Dourgrim

unvote: GIEFF
Post 95

Dourgrim

FoS: mykonian vote: Panzer
Post 96

GIEFF

FOS Panzerjager
Post 97

springlullaby

Vote djekha
Post 98

springlullaby

Unvote, vote djekha
Post 105

GIEFF

unvote Vote Panzerjager
Post 125

MacavityLock

Unvote
Post 137

mykonian

FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim
Post 158

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby
Post 167

subgenius

FoS: Panzer
Post 170

subgenius

unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager
Post 193

GIEFF

FoS mykonian
Post 217

Dourgrim

FoS: GIEFF
Post 219

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 225

Panzerjager

FoS:Gieff
Post 234

Beyond_Birthday

Unvote
Post 241

mykonian

vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF
Post 244

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 251

mykonian

unvote vote Beyond_birthday
Post 259

Zilla

Vote: Goatrevolt
Post 265

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday
Post 270

springlullaby

Unvote
Post 275

Zilla

FOS
Post 279

militant

Unvote
Post 285

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday
Post 296

Panzerjager

Unvote:Zilla Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday
Post 297

Zilla

unvote: goatrevolt Vote: Mykonian
Post 298

Panzerjager

Unvote. Vote:Zilla
Post 305

GIEFF

Not a random vote HoS Beyond_Birthday
Post 312

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF
Post 384

Beyond_Birthday

Vote Zilla
Post 398

GIEFF

Unvote Vote Beyond_Birthday
Post 400

Dourgrim

unvote: GIEFF <BR><BR>FoS: GIEFF vote: Beyond_Birthday HUGE FoS's: ting =) and qwints slightly smaller but still pretty big FoS: springlullaby
Post 414

mykonian

unvote
Post 421

Zilla

FOS: Goatrevolt
Post 433

Panzerjager

Unvote, Vote:Beyond_Birthday
Post 441

Zilla

FOS'd
Post 442

Dourgrim

medium-sized FoS: subgenius
Post 445

Dourgrim

unvote: BB <BR><BR>vote: Panzer
Post 486

Zilla

unvote: Mykonian <BR>Vote: Goatrevolt
Post 517

qwints

vote Beyond_Birthday
Post 524

Goatrevolt

FoS Zilla
Post 544

Zilla

Unvote: Goatrevolte Vote: Beyond Birthday
Post 550

GIEFF

Unvote Vote Zilla
Post 551

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote Zilla
Post 562

militant

Vote Zilla
Post 579

mykonian

vote GIEFF
Post 581

GIEFF

Confirm vote Zilla
Post 608

GIEFF

unvote vote qwints
Post 623

Panzerjager

Unvote:Vote:Zilla.
Post 625

Dourgrim

unvote
Post 640

Dourgrim

vote: Zilla
Post 662

Zilla

unvote: Birthday <BR>vote: Goatrevolt
Post 663

Zilla

FOS: Mykonian
Post 681

GIEFF

unvote qwints
Post 685

GIEFF

Vote: Beyond_Birthday
Post 691

Dourgrim

unvote: Zilla <BR><BR>vote: Panzerjager
Post 704

qwints

FOS: Zilla

[GIEFF]

Exactly. So then, what's the catch?

What do you mean by this? Are you asking why I don't like the Zilla wagon?

I still think Zilla is scummy, but I think B_B is just as scummy, and there aren't the same problems with his lynch.

See Post 681.


Do you not find B_B as scummy as you once did, Goat? Or do you think B_B's scumminess is the same as it has been, but Zilla's has since surpassed his? Re-read the section of the thread where you were suspicious of him.

I realized on a recent read-through that I have been casting my vote based on who was most recently suspicious, but the amount of time that has passed since a scummy action should not negate that action's scumminess. If so, I am allowing a lurking strategy to be successful. Scum will think "I just have to wait this pressure out until somebody else does something scummy, too."


Also, Goat, if you do think that Zilla is significantly scummier than B_B, do you think this could be because she has simply said so many more words, and had so much more interaction with you?

[GIEFF]

More things to add to my list in Post 681:

• I don't like the fact that mykonian has now called Zilla a townie for the THIRD time
• I don't like the fact that mykonian wants a Zilla-claim even though he doesn't think she is scum
• I don't like the fact that Dourgrim hopped back off the wagon after I asked him (in post 681) why he voted for Zilla, as he previously said he wanted to avoid the B_B/Zilla WIFOM
• I don't like the fact that Panzer has gone so far in demanding a Zilla-claim that he is refusing to post anything until this happens
• I don't like the fact that people are still demanding Zilla claims, even though she is at L-4

Although, to be fair, the reverse of my latest post could be true; I may be seeing more things wrong with the Zilla wagon simply because she has talked more and had more interactions with people.


If you want to boil that whole list down into one sentence, it is this: I don't like the fact that the players I find the scummiest are the ones clamoring for Zilla to claim or to get lynched.

[GIEFF]

First, on "lying about GIEFF," I didn't think GIEFF had actually been tunneling and even though he had an initial focus on Panzer, he dropped that when Dour challenged him, and then he and Dour traded blows ad infinitum.

This isn't what happened; Dour and I "traded blows" first, and then I focused on Panzer.

[GIEFF]

1. The manner in which he hopped on Zilla was suspect. However, he immediately hopped back off. Most important, though, Dourgrim acted exactly the same way towards the BB wagon. He jumped on, then back off for Panzer. If this is an issue for lynching Zilla (I don't see it as one. Scum buddy reluctance to lynch her. Indecisive townie? there are plenty of explanations) then it should also be an issue against lynching BB.

The issue with #1 is that Dourgrim's hop on came AFTER his post about the WIFOM inherent in either a B_B or a Zilla lynch. The B_B unvote was partly due to Dourgrim wanting to avoid this WIFOM, so it made little sense for Dourgrim to get back on a Zilla wagon, especially as the 4th or 5th vote.

2. I addressed this already, but Panzer had already made it clear he wanted a Zilla or BB lynch. His vote on Zilla should not have been a surprise. In fact, he also placed a vote on BB when the wagon was gaining steam. Shouldn't that also be a detracting factor from the BB wagon?

It's possible I just noticed it because it was soon after I voted, but it looked as if he was happy to watch the Zilla wagon gain steam without actually being on it, but as soon as it looked like it may be derailed, he jumped on. You are right that this reason does apply to the B_B wagon; a scummy player keeps switching his vote between the two players.

3. Irrelevant point. You didn't have an issue with Dour voting BB when I "pushed" him into it earlier. I'm convincing people to vote for Zilla based on her play, not coercion. You yourself have admitted there is nothing wrong with me championing for a lynch on someone I believe to be scum. You right now are championing for a BB lynch. Wouldn't you cry foul if I said that it was a bad wagon because people voted BB based on your push?

The real issue was that I didn't like was the fact that Panzer and Dourgrim hopped on. It was after I noticed this that I realized both hops were subsequent to your persuasion. And then I noticed you trying to persuade me, too.

As I said, I don't like the fact that the person "championing" the lynch is the person the lynch-target was hammering on for the last 15 pages. It's impossible to avoid at least some emotion creeping in. I don't think it is scummy that you are doing so, I just don't like it; it isn't "clean." If we are prepared to lynch Zilla, I'd like to have another non-scummy-looking person (i.e. not mykonian, Panzer, or B_B) championing it along side you, someone that isn't so emotionally invested.

You are right that we have the same problem with a B_B lynch if I am the only one championing it. Not from my own perspective, of course, but from everyone else's. Do I have any takers for a co-champion of a B_B-lynch?

5. Mykonian argued that Panzer was a townie. That didn't stop you from pressuring him. If this was a valid enough point to deter you from a wagon, then it should also be a valid enough point for you to be voting Mykonian now.

It is valid enough for me to vote mykonian, but I still think I find B_B scummier. I would love for mykonian to try to put a case together on me, as he has been tunneled on me for 20 pages. Back it up with some analysis, mykonian. No generalities like "he tunnels" or "he nitpicks." Surely if you've found me the most suspicious player for 20 pages, you can at least do that much.

He called Panzer a townie once, which I thought was scummy, but I can see it just being a coincidence. He has referred to Zilla's towniness THREE times, which, as I said before, stretches the limits of coincidence.

7. I don't have a problem with it, considering his point was actually valid. If he was voting her based on poor or weak reasoning, then I would agree.

Looking back, it actually looks like PANZER was the first to vote Zilla, who was then followed by B_B. I think this is what Dourgrim was referring to in the "Zilla-WIFOM" post. I am a whole lot more comfortable with the initial Zilla-vote being from Panzer than with it being from B_B.

8. I personally think you are overstating the magnitude of this. Do you think Mykonian as scum would blatantly state someone is a townie after the ruckus that had been raised earlier in the thread over that same point? This is an easy "slip" for townies to make. If you think someone is scum, then you naturally feel that the people they are attacking are townies. Furthermore, Mykonian has said that BB was an easy target, and argued against Panzer's lynch as well. This doesn't apply only to the Zilla-wagon.

I see your question in the opposite light; EVEN after the ruckus raised, he STILL does it. It isn't so simple as saying "Zilla is townie," it's things that reveal that mykonian is assuming Zilla is town. Go back and actually read what he wrote.



11 and 12. I agree that the criteria Zilla mentioned were met, and that she should have claimed. Regardless, calling for a claim when a player is at L-4 is not pro-town. Not realizing how many votes a player has when you are clamoring for her to claim is also not pro-town. And it's the scummiest players in the game who are doing it. Doesn't that set off any bells?

When B_B, mykonian, and Panzer all agree on something, my instinct is to do the opposite.

Do you disagree?


You are also right that a number of these points also apply to a B_B wagon, especially regarding Panzer's behavior. But Dourgrim's behavior does just apply to Zilla, as the Zilla-vote occurred after he said he didn't want to lynch B_B or Zilla, and the B_B vote occurred before he said that.

-----

B_B, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on a mykonian lynch.

[GIEFF]

Notice how there is no actual attempt to debunk my statements, or prove how my inconsistencies are not actual inconsistencies.

That just isn't true. Look at her mega-post. I don't agree with all of her logic or her version of events, but you can't claim that there was no attempt to debunk your statements.

She did have some points in that mega-post that I DID agree with. An important one was saying B_B was at 75%, but you were at 20%. When she said you were at 20%, it was in response to my question about if she suspected a Goat-mykonian-Panzer scumtriplet. It was a nested percentage, based on the alignment of others.

-----

I agree with your points about her lack of scumhunting and the timing of her votes, though, and they are strong ones. Zilla, in your vote for B_B, you made an entire post about me and Goat, and said only a few words about B_B. You behaved similarly in your recent vote for mykonian, only deciding to talk about mykonian once you said you realized your Goat case wasn't going to lead to a lynch, which should have been clear pages and pages ago.

[GIEFF]

I can't find it now, Goat. I'm pretty sure she said something about her 20%-Goat thing being in response to this post by me. I dug through her mega-post, but I can't find it. I'm sure I saw it somewhere, though.

And reading back through her Goat 20% post, I can believe that it was in response to my question about a Goat-mykonian-Panzer scumtriplet.


This is minor, though, and it's still odd you went from such a low probability (even in a nested probability) to the main focus of her attack for 15 pages. I brought this up just to demonstrate the fact that she DID address arguments you've made, and not always poorly.


Goat, how do you feel about mykonian and Panzer? Do you find them as scummy as I do? More or less scummy than B_B? More or less scummy than each other?

[GIEFF]

You don't see a scum motive behind demanding a claim from a player you don't want to see lynched?

[GIEFF]

The point I was making was more like her means of addressing them is frequently via misrepresentation, or deflection, or dismissal. The disconnect lies in that I don't really consider those valid responses.

I agree. The point I was making was that she was NOT ignoring your posts, as you claimed.

You're only going to vote Zilla if one of some subset of pre-ordained players is also in favor of it? If Militant was championing her lynch, would that be enough to sway you, why? What if subgenius came back and said that he wanted to lynch Zilla, would that change your mind? If this is your philosophy, you will never be convinced enough to vote Zilla. I think you are deluding yourself, and creating arbitrary constraints as to why you don't want to lynch Zilla. Think honestly, for one second. Whose opinion in this game do you trust enough that you need their support on the Zilla wagon before you can get aboard?

Even if B_B or Panzer were town, I could see them supporting a Zilla lynch just because it helps avoid their own lynch. Self-preservation is not exclusive to scum. Yes, if militant supported a Zilla lynch to the same degree you did, that would help. If anybody besides mykonian, Panzer, or B_B supported it to the extent that they were also trying to get others on board, I think I would be OK with it, too. But now, the main ringleaders are the person the most emotionally invested, and the people who I think are scum, and who also have a number of votes on them. And I see that as a problem.

I would be suspicious, for instance, if he was inconsistent in applying his reasoning, but he appears to fairly consistently be against any case that is based around inconsistencies or lying.

mykonian has not been consistent. He voted me because he thought I was using lynch all liars and that I was pushing a case way too far if it was really based on LAL, then he unvoted me when he realized I was not using LAL, and then re-voted me (in a case-extender quite similar to what Zilla has done to you) because I was on the Zilla and B_B wagons, even though others were as well. That is far from consistent.

Did you carefully read Zilla's case on mykonian? Do you see him extending his case on me with the "unfalsifiable argument" and "on B_B and Zilla's wagon" arguments?

And look, now he's back on the LAL kick:

I argue here that stupidly following LAL is bad play. You got to see what happens around it, something GIEFF clearly didn't do. He only screamed that we should lynch Panzer because he lied.

My case was not LAL. You agreed when you unvoted me.

OK GIEFF, I understand what you are saying. For town, reasons are part of hunting for scum, for scum they are an excuse to make their votes.

Now we are not talking about lies anymore, we are talking about motivations behind a vote. Can you prove me that Panzer his motivations for his vote on me are not for hunting scum, but are an excuse for a vote on me? (I think I know where this will go, but when it is 23.40, I'm not going to try)

My response, explaining my case again for mykonian.

Then, mykonian said:

I don't know if it is the time, or just because GIEFF was very clear, but I can see where he comes from.

Tomorrow I'll try to get my thoughts together.

Goodnight.

And then, "tomorrow":

unvote

I still have the feeling something is wrong, but the way GIEFF puts it, I can believe that.

sorry for this short post.

Why do you no longer believe it? Did you forget that you pretended to be convinced? It can be hard to keep lies straight sometimes, I guess. Better to just vote based on who you think is really scum. It's a lot easier when you don't know everybody's alignment.

1 You are twisting my words, I have correctly explained what it meant, and why I posted it that way.

That doesn't change the fact that you called her a townie. And I still don't buy your excuse.

----------

And yes, I read your posts, I am not responding to them because, again, I am not going to waste my time.

This seems to be working so far, but it can only work for so long. You will have to play the game at some point.


I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you. And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.

2.1 is not an exit clause. It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.

If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right? Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.

Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.

Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.


----

GIEFF (spin-doctoring, out-of-context nitpicking, misrepresentation)

I am sick of this. I have not misrepresented anything on purpose. Make a case on me. Ask for help from B_B and mykonian if you like. If you can't make a case(as mykonian couldn't), then stop throwing out these generic statements. If a lie is repeated enough times, it will seem true.

Link to posts where I nitpick out-of-context or misrepresent, and I will show you why either you misunderstood or I did.

I don't want to see anybody accuse me of nitpicking or misrepresentation again without making a solid case, with links to posts and quotes that show exactly what you mean.

[GIEFF]

Because you keep throwing out general statements that aren't true, and, as I said, if it's repeated often enough without opposition, people will start to believe it.

[GIEFF]

I did not want her to martyr herself. I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

[GIEFF]

Regarding emotion, you still haven't addressed the couple of places where I discussed it. Also, I want to hear what you have to say about my "Zilla's suspicious L-2 on BB should be a huge deterrence from that wagon if you were actually as suspicious of Zilla as you state" comment. You're using BB and Panzer's presence on the Zilla wagon as reason to stay away yourself, but you're not using Zilla and Panzer's presence on the earlier BB wagon in the same manner.

I believe I have addressed it. You've said that emotion isn't involved, and I disagree. Even if you really don't think you are being affected at all by emotion, I don't think it's possible for humans not to be. You have said things like "I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds," have admitted how frustrated Zilla makes you, and talked about consciously trying to remain objective.

And the fact that your focus is so singular doesn't help your claim that you are not acting emotionally. Even if you won't accept a lynch other than Zilla's today, why aren't you at least considering who else is scum? The game lasts for more than one day, and if you are killed tonight, we won't get your input on or interactions with other players.


You're right that Panzer was on the B_B wagon. I'm not disputing that, and I'm not disputing that it is a problem with the B_B wagon. The list of things I saw wrong with the Zilla wagon was just that; it was not meant to be reasons I prefer a B_B lynch to a Zilla lynch. As I said, a number of the anti-Zilla-lynch reasons would also apply to a B_B lynch. Also, Panzer has been much more adamant about the Zilla lynch than the B_B lynch, going so far as to go on "post-strike" until Zilla claims.


Speaking of Panzer, it's been a while since his last post. Are you still on strike, Panzer? Do you still feel that, at L-4, Zilla should still claim?


-----
mykonian, are you happy with your vote on springlullaby? Why haven't you mentioned her again since voting for her? Having trouble fabricating reasons?

[GIEFF]

Then it is simple: do I think it more scummy for someone to lie about his first vote, or do I think it more scummy to go after that and try to lynch that person on LAL (only later you came with the unfalsifiable motivations-argument).

I want to respond to the "LAL" thing a bit further.

This is completely wrong. And I don't know what you mean by "unfalsifiable." Isn't every single case in the game "unfalsifiable?"

You claim that my original case was just about lynching Panzer because he lied, and had nothing to do with his motivation for voting - you say this only came later. I will prove you wrong.

I've tried to explain this to you time and time again throughout the thread, but either the language barrier or your unwillingness to understand is preventing us from communicating effectively. I will try it again.

1 - I tell Panzer he is misrepresenting the past.
2 - I tell Panzer he lied.

So yes, if I had left my case at this, it would just be LAL. But....

3 - I vote for Panzer, and say

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

More quotes from me talking to Panzer:

If you really are town, what you should do is stop lying about your reasons for voting people

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Lying about reasoning. This is a huge scumtell, as it indicates the player is just faking reasoning. If you arrived at suspicion naturally, you should be able to explain why. If you STARTED at suspicion and then tried to fill in the blanks so another would believe that you arrive there due to actual logic and reasoning, you can slip up and get caught in mistakes. If Player X really finds Player Y scummy, there should be no reason for Player X to lie about the reasons behind that suspision.

Panzer was faking logic.

The lie wasn't meant to confuse the town, it was meant to convince the town that Panzer really thought you were scum, that he saw scummy behavior and acted on it, rather than voting for you for other reasons and trying to fabricate reasons he did not really believe to justify it.

I feel like I've done this before. Yet you STILL are pushing the "LAL" thing, even after UNVOTING me after claiming you understood my point.


Point to a place where I say "lynch all liars" or argue that we should lynch Panzer simply because he lied. If you can't (and I know you can't), then don't mischaracterize my case as "Lynch all liars" again. Not all lies are equally scummy; lies about the reasons behind your vote are the scummiest, for reasons I've gone into over and over, and reasons which you have shown no interest in attempting to understand.

-----

Goat, I am still waiting to hear if you have carefully read Zilla's case on mykonian, and to hear whether you think he extended his case on me in a similar way to Zilla extending her case on you. Read the top half of 787.

[GIEFF]

Which, specifically, of my points against Zilla is invalidated by emotion? Whether or not emotion is involved, my case against her is not based on it. How does any of my case become somehow less valid?

None of them, specifically. They are excellent points, and I think Zilla is scum.

It isn't your case that becomes less valid, it is lynching Zilla based on it that I am afraid of. You have had such a singular focus on Zilla that you are practically ignoring the other players and their possible alignments, unless they are in relation to Zilla. If your scumdar is as good as you think it is and you really think Zilla is scum, then use it to help us catch more.

Don't you think it's possible that you focused on Zilla BEFORE you convinced yourself she was scum, and just never looked back? You were emotional, so you dug through Zilla's posts, found (legitimately and logically) scummy things, and then pushed her case. But if emotion weren't involved, you would have dug through other players' posts, too.

And again, the emotional-Goat angle is less important to me than the fact that B_B, mykonian and Panzer were all demanding her to claim, and that Dourgrim hopped on so soon after claiming there was too much WIFOM in a Zilla lynch, and so soon after agreeing with your argument that Zilla was a better lynch than Panzer. You yourself have questioned Dourgrim on this point, and I don't think he's answered it. Dour, you talked about the Zilla WIFOM being an issue, but that doesn't explain why you RE-voted for Zilla after I unvoted her. Or why you are re-voting her again now. Or why you agreed Zilla was a better lynch than Panzer, but then soon switched right back to Panzer again.

------

Also, GIEFF all of those quotes were from like..20 pages ago. Drop it.

I think you should be directing this at mykonian. He is the one who continues to call my case "LAL." If he continues to lie, I will continue to show him why he is wrong. He claimed to have been convinced before, but either he was lying, or he forgot.

[GIEFF]

I'm pissed that people left Zilla of the hook.

She's obviously the most scummy player in the game.

I find this statement by you to be ridiculous, based on your epic Zilla-waffles.

*cue Benny Hill music*

(underline and italics are mine)

I think this (

B_B's unvote of Panzer

) is

by far the scummiest thing in the thread

. When I look at this post, it reads: "Panzerwagon 09 as lost tremendous ammounts of momentum, blah blah blah blah. *hop of the wagon*"

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday

This is a much better lead then SL.

Your not asking to be involved in the game (you can involve yourself by reading the thread and posting opinions). Us giving you summaries of old stuff isn't gonna take you into account either, it's just gonna tell you look here. You are trying to find an easy place to stow away.

Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday

This is far far scummier. then what BB has been doing

but I want answers BB.

The above two quotes came IN THE SAME POST.

296

In light of this arguement, I'm going

Unvote:Zilla

This is because it genuinely looks like 2 townies going at it because of something that was bullshit due to a player being lazy. Her uber-long post, have proved to me that she's not lazy, although I didn't like how zilla was asking(BSing us), I'm going to buy her reasoning.

Genuinely looks like 2 townies going at it, eh?

And then,

6 minutes later

(!):

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

At least this flip-flop didn't occur in the same post. 6 minutes is an improvement.

618

I think Zilla is pretty much Caught Scum. But that's just me. To me, nothing she has said has changed my intial opinion of her.

I should have noticed this when you said it. But WOW is that wrong.



And now you've gone into shut-down mode. Could it be that your indecision between B_B and Zilla was just due to the fact that you were relieved the lynch wasn't going to be you?

[GIEFF]

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

Explain what you mean by spin doctoring, and show me exactly where I did it, and why it is spin doctoring.

You have gone back and forth between Zilla and B_B MANY times, so it's ridiculous for you to expect anybody to take you seriously when you say that Zilla is "obviously" the most scummy player in the game. That is my point.

[GIEFF]

in post 67, panzer calms down. Till that point, I have seen not a single attack from GIEFF on Panzer, he was more questioning Goat and Dourgrim.

So? In what way is this scummy?

in post 82/83 GIEFF still attacks dourgrim, summarizes the activity in the game (he accuses a few people of (active) lurking) panzer is not mentioned, while it is clear GIEFF read the complete thread

So? In what way is this scummy?

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

I've read this a few times, and I'm confused at what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that I think that a jokepost means that there can't be a scumtell in it? The scumtell isn't the fact that it was or wasn't a joke-vote; it's the fact that Panzer lied about it.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Now that you realize you have made a mistake, do you think you could consider revising (I guess I should say re-revising) your opinion of what my case actually was?

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

This is very difficult to understand. I think the language barrier is a lot wider than I realized up until this point. Are you trying to say Panzer wasn't really lying?

Panzer lied, and it was obvious. He even said himself that my point was valid, and that he had to check if he was scum.

The fact that Panzer lied should not be disputed on page 33. It was resolved long ago. I don't know whether to attribute your views to the language thing, or to a conscious desire to try to shape the past to fit your current views.

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote
Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Yes, it very much follows. And again, this was practically PROVEN long ago, to the point that even Panzer agreed. Why do you still refuse to?


And I shouldn't even have to tell you why it follows, because PANZER ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE ASSUMED YOU THOUGHT I WAS ANTI-TOWN.

This is ridiculous, mykonian. Flat-out ridiculous. You have nothing. You are trying to argue that I am scum because I made an argument 30 pages ago that is 100% verifiably accurate, yet you STILL think is false.

Ridiculous.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt?

Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

What the hell? So you did see that post? And you are still arguing this? Your case on me is that you think the following quote is NOT Panzer saying that you called me anti-town?

Ridiculous.

I don't think anybody disagreed with my underlined question, yet here you are, doing it 30 pages later to try to justify your bogus vote.


------

GIEFF: You are taking panzer's posts out of context.

The first post where you note his opinion changing was a post where he was chronologically reading through the game. For him to jump on BB, but then later read a post that made him want to jump on Zilla instead isn't really suspicious. It's a chronological post, and his opinion will change as he reads newer posts.

When you discuss the 6 minute flip-flop, what you don't note is Zilla posting in between that period. In that post, she uses Mykonian mentioning the SK as a point against him, despite having previously said that the SK discussion was meaningless and a waste of time, etc. Panzer changed his mind as a direct result of that post, and he had a valid reason, which doesn't make it suspicious.

That's not relevant. The point I am making is that it is clear as day that Panzer should not think Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player, considering how rapidly he has switched his vote between them. The reasons for the vote changes are not important; what is important is the fact that Panzer claims he view on Zilla has never changed (even after saying she "genuinely" looks like a townie), and that Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player.

Calling it "misrepresentation" is deflecting from the point I am making. Go ahead, throw the quote in; it doesn't change my argument, it just dilutes it with un-related words.

[GIEFF]

Here are the differences, though: Mykonian debated the LAL thing with you and dropped it after you convinced him. Granted, he has gone back and argued it again a few times, but he is at least willing to debate it with you, and was (at least initially) willing to drop it when he was shown to be wrong. Zilla, on the other hand, merely brushed aside my points, and moved on to others. That difference is crucial.

I disagree. It was a LOT more than "a few" times. Just about every time I've had to re-explain myself, it has been on account of mykonian not understanding me.

And he was NOT willing to debate it with me. I tried to put it into 4 easy points, and he just ignored them, and STILL has ignored them. B_B tried to help him out by responding for him, but mykonian still hasn't mentioned them.

Mykonian: A
GIEFF: A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: no, you're missing my explanation of why A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: Read these posts where I show you how A is wrong.
Mykonian: Ok, I drop A. What about B, C?

Here is how I see it:

A = my actual reason for voting Panzer, including the somewhat detailed and subtle explanation about why lying about your reasoning for a vote is so scummy.
B = "We should lynch every player who lies, no matter how minor."


GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.



And if you think I am exaggerating the number of times mykonian said "B is wrong", here are hyperlinks:

GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.


And this is why I became upset. I should not have to repeat myself that often, language barrier or no.

[GIEFF]

Goat, in my below post, I read you in iso, and realized I didn't answer the below 2 questions by you towards me:

What's the real reason you think she's town? I don't think these "issues with her wagon" are the real reasons you don't want to lynch her. Maybe this is what you are telling yourself is the reason behind it, but I would doubt this is the honest truth.

I think she is more likely to be scum than town. My "issues" were realized when both Panzer and Dourgrim jumped on the Zilla-wagon after I jumped off. Everything else followed from there.

I think you are a townie. Is that a scum slip? Or is that my opinion based on the evidence within the thread?

Of course that's not a slip. You are conscious of it. You say you think I am a townie.

Accidentally

revealing knowledge that a townie should not have is scummy; this should be an easy point to understand.

Now, on to the rest of my post.
-------

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

This reminded me of your behavior much earlier in the thread:


You defend Panzer
I say I don't like you defending Panzer
You admit you were a bit hasty in jumping to Panzer's defense.

After this, you make the below posts questioning Panzer:

149
165
240 - in this post, you say you you find Panzer scummy, but something seems off about the wagon.
In response to Zilla's prods, you write in 295 that your logic says Panzer is scummy, but your gut says he is not.

But after this point, you only mentioned Panzer in relation to Zilla (including saying he could be a scumbuddy in 564) until Panzer's 614, in which he says "we're overthinking this lynch" soon after I unvoted Zilla. He claims the timing is coincidence, but I don't believe him. Anyway, after post 614, you asked him a couple questions and got him to vote Zilla. Am I right in assuming that at this point, you still found Panzer scummy? And the fact that he apologized to you is still very weird to me. Why would he apologize to you?

And after you get Panzer to re-join the Zilla wagon, you don't mention Panzer again, until I ask you directly what you think of him and mykonian. You respond in 775 that you actually see Panzer as pro-town now, but your reasoning for this change in heart relates SOLELY to logic about Zilla.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?


Can you point to an example of you answering for another player that is NOT Panzer? I didn't find one in my iso-read of you (which was admittedly not completely thorough).

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: I assume BB is your top choice for a lynch based on your vote. Would you be willing to lynch either Panzer/Zilla? If so, what order?

I have actually been gravitating more toward mykonian lately. My lynch-desirability list keeps changing, but right now, I believe it is:

B_B...mykonian
Zilla...Panzer

Although looking at that, I realize that three out of the four players have pissed me off; Panzer is the only one that I don't have to worry about being clouded by my own emotions.

To be fair, as I said in my recent vote summary, ting's vote on Panzer is from post 38, and subgenius' vote was very old, too. Spring is the only vote that should really count.

So if we make it just between B_B and Zilla, I would prefer B_B, but in the interests of ending the day, I would not kick and scream against a Zilla lynch.



And ting, why the hell haven't you changed your vote since post 38? It is hard for me to believe that a player whose objective is to lynch scum would not use his vote.

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

No, I don't. Zilla's behavior toward B_B looked like a scum toward her buddy (i.e. saying she found him really scummy, but not voting for him and instead focusing on you), but B_B's behavior toward her does not.

But I also very much doubt they are town buddies. I think it is more likely they are town buddies than scum buddies, but it's still much more likely that they are not of the same alignment.

Back in the 300s, Panzer was roughly 3rd on my scum list. I thought the case against him was solid in terms of the logical inconsistencies. Some of his posts just struck me as town, though.

Fine, and this is consistent with what you said in the past. Let's call this "A."

Once I started to see Zilla as scum, I saw Panzer as a scum buddy. That wasn't directly related to anything Panzer did, but more my interpretation of Zilla's actions.

Let's call this "B."


So, Panzer was 3rd on your scumlist, and seen by you as scummy, due to A. Then, you discovered B. Then, you discounted B. Shouldn't that leave you just with A? When explaining why you found Panzer pro-town, you just mention why B is not valid. This reminds me of B_B's dismount from the Panzer wagon; he said that he didn't like my later points, which negated the earlier ones.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?

I mention that above.

I disagree. According to your "Back in the 300s" paragraph, even after Panzer made good points about B_B, he was still 3rd on your scumlist, so his pro-town actions had to have occurred AFTER this point. And your next two paragraphs have a "too-scummy" WIFOM fallacy, and relate solely to Panzer's behavior through your Zilla-is-scum lens (i.e. they don't relate to "A").

[GIEFF]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

[GIEFF]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

It was meant to contrast your refusal to respond to points I've made.

I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

I have not done this. If scum think I have, then that's all the better for me. I was asked to explain my reasoning and I did. This is not EVERYTHING I find scummy about ALL cases on ALL mafia players. It is just related to why I think Panzer's lie about his random vote was scummy.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. My point is a lot simpler than this. Townies base their votes on evidence, logic, reasoning, and gut. Scum do not; they fake these things in order to look townie. That's it.


Your behavior can't be explained away so simply. You were lying. A "yes, that was scummy" defense might work for other people here, but it doesn't for me, especially when you fought a similar claim that your play had been scummy tooth and nail. I just can't see a townie playing that way.

[GIEFF]

and stop hiding behind: it happened so long ago and it was resolved. That's what happens in a forum game, we can read back and see what we can find. I think you continiously misrepresented Panzer, and build a case based on that that floated on the word LIE. That is scummy.

Panzer disagrees:

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

And also, I HAVE dropped it; I am no longer pursuing Panzer as my lynch-choice, and have not been for a long time. You are the one who keeps calling me scummy because you don't understand my case, so I am trying to explain to you that it isn't what you think it is. I should probably just ignore you, but when you repeat over and over again that my case was just LAL, I feel like I have to set the record straight.

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

If I can't convince you I'm not scum, that's fine, but PLEASE don't play this way. If you are town, we lose your scumhunting abilities completely, because your whole outlook on the game will be skewed by the fact that you are so sure I'm scum.

[GIEFF]

I was not making a point to call you scummy, mykonian; I was just trying to make sure that if you are town, you are not viewing the entire game through a faulty lens (i.e. me-as-scum). I simply was focusing on that part because that is the part I have a problem with.

[GIEFF]

mykonian; I am sorry you see my play that way, and it is not at all what I am trying to do. I "take out small bits" because I think they are all that is relevant to the point I am trying to make. My posts are already far too long, and if I quoted an entire post every time I wanted to reference it, nobody could follow my train of thought.

If my point was that your quote was meant to represent your view of the game, then yes, it would be misrepresentation, and it would be scummy. But that was NOT my point.

Here's another example of you assumign I am saying something that I am not at all trying to say:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town,

for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

Let me try to summarize your thinking in the above post, mykonian: "GIEFF is trying to convince people the reason Panzer voted mykonian is the fact that mykonian called GIEFF antitown." Is that accurate?

But that is not at all what I am trying to convince people of. I am just trying to convince them that Panzer did in fact assert that mykonian called GIEFF anti-town, as THIS is the lie that you don't seem to think exists. Panzer later says that he knew mykonian's vote for GIEFF was a joke. But the fact that Panzer did assert that mykonian called GIEFF anti-town reveals that fact that it was NOT a joke

THIS is how I reveal the lie, and THIS is why the lie is so obvious, and this lie did not come in the random-voting stage. He claimed he knew your vote was a joke, but it is clear that at the time, he felt you really thought I was anti-town. If you REALLY think I am anti-town (which you did not), then it CANNOT be a joke. Right? That is the contradiction, one with which Panzer himself agreed.

I understand that this is a complicated point, and I fear the language barrier is a problem here. But do you see that what you assumed I was trying to do is not what I was actually doing?

[GIEFF]

I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer

WOW, that is scummy.

Please, go into some more detail about why you find Panzer scummy. You haven't mentioned him once in the last 17 pages.

What has changed about Panzer besides the fact that his wagon has suddenly started growing? I don't have time to look back now, but did your vote-switch to B_B come at a similarly opportunistic time?

Gieff: How many times do you generally go back and read through (proofread/edit) your posts prior to posting them?Secondly, You mentioned (and I agree) that BB/Zilla don't really fit as scum together. Yet you label both BB and Zilla as scum. How does that work?

I almost always go through at least once to make sure I didn't mess up a quote or something, cause that really kills the ability to understand the post or reply to it. Why?


I think they are both scummy. I am only operating on the "first level" here, though. I am not making nested assumptions about either of them yet. I am looking for one scum today, not two. You are right that if there is a 0% chance that they BOTH are scum, the maximum chance that, on average, we pick right between the two is just 50%, assuming B_B and Zilla are equally likely to be scum. So if another player has a >50% chance of being scum, that person becomes a better lynch candidate.

Of course, it's just about impossible to assign an accurate percentage, and if we have 3 scum, then 50% is pretty high; almost double the 3/11 random-pick percentage.

[GIEFF]

Look at qwints' only two votes so far in the thread:

qwints votes BB. BB had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned BB at all prior to this vote (admittedly, this was just his 3rd post or so, but he had mentioned 2 other players as looking scummy). There is no new reasoning presented to justify the B_B vote, just parroting.

qwints votes Panzer. Panzer had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned Panzer at all in the 17 pages prior to his vote. There is no new reasoning presented to justify the Panzer vote, just parroting.


This is EXTREMELY scummy. It looks like qwints has no interest whatsoever in scumhunting; he just repeats points others have used to justify hopping on a growing wagon.

He's done this to B_B and Panzer, yet not Zilla. I don't know if this is relevant now, but once we know the alignment of any of these 4 players, I think this could be good to look back on.

FoS qwints

-----

GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town,

for simply wanting to lynch mafia

. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

do you see the difference with:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.

I have never said that Panzer voted you because you said I am anti-town.

That is the entire point, and you fail to see it. Is this the language barrier? Or are you just refusing to see my point? You are arguing that I said something, but I never said it.

Did you even read my post?

I understand that this is a complicated point, and I fear the language barrier is a problem here. But do you see that what you assumed I was trying to do is not what I was actually doing?

It is important to me that you understand this. Or at least try to understand this. Throughout the thread you have shown you have no interest whatsoever in even considering the fact that you are wrong about what my case entails. It is immensely frustrating. And once again, you ignore my explanation.

If it just doesn't make sense, or if you just don't feel like reading it, then say so. But I am sick of you falsely saying "LAL" over the last 30 pages, not to mention the fact that it is scummy to focus on this at the expense of any other real scumhunting (I disagree with Goat when Goat says that you have done a sufficient amount of scumhunting).


You also ignored most of my Post 822. Ignore, ignore, ignore. And continue to hammer the same stale, obviously wrong point about my case on Panzer that was 20 pages old.

You have no original scumhunting ideas, so you just keep throwing out the same one you picked up so long ago. This is akin to active lurking. It looks like you're scumhunting, but really you're just repeating the same point over and over, and ignoring subsequent explanations..

GIEFF: A
mykonian: B is wrong.

[GIEFF]

We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.

I figure this is a good time for me to claim. My role is "3-year-old." I am afraid of the dark, so I must prolong the day as long as possible; my win condition is to get the thread to 50 pages before a day 1 lynch.

[GIEFF]

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion militant, it was a complete joke.

---------

Ok..Now this arguement needs to stop. The above is the absolute truth. Bottom line is that I contradicted myself because I missed a joke and then caught a joke and then told GIEFF i knew it was a joke when I didn't originally know it was a joke.

Thank you. I agree.

-------------

I'm sorry GIEFF.

unvote

There is no need to apologize. These aren't easy arguments to make or understand. I'm interested to see who you want to pursue with your vote, now that it is freed up.

------
I would very much like to hear qwints' response to my question about the similarities between his only two votes in this game.

• B_B wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.
  
• Zilla wagon grows, qwints says "this seems more about abrasiveness than scumminess." B_B was just as abrasive as Zilla; where was this excuse then?
  
• Panzer wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.

Very little content from qwints, just about no original points raised, he doesn't appear interested in scumhunting, and he loves jumping on building wagons, late enough to be sure they're going somewhere, and early enough to avoid the icky responsibility that comes from hammering or putting someone at L-1. Niiiiiice and comfy, those extra votes at L-4.

[GIEFF]

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

What? Why am I more likely town now? Because you have been convinced that you were misunderstanding me, or because you feel it looks too scummy to continue to pursue me for something that happened so long ago?


Sorry if you think this is continuing the argument, but I don't; I feel this is legitimate. If you focus on just one player for the majority of the game, you shouldn't drop it instantly just because Panzer tells you to.

[GIEFF]

OK, fair enough. Thanks for helping to end this, Panzer.

[GIEFF]

I did not want her to martyr herself. I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

Are you sure about that?

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

Yes, I am sure. Note the use of the word

IF

. It is a conditional command, meant to demonstrate that the conditional (Zilla is a townie, sure she has caught two or three scum) is NOT correct. That was my point.


As I said before:

Of course I knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself. This post was meant to demonstrate the fact that Zilla was NOT actually confident that she caught two or three scum, and that her statement was one of scummy self-preservation, not one she actually felt was true. Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question, giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.

---

I'm waiting till I catch up with the whole game to cast my vote. I've said that before already. Catching up to the game is turning out to be harder than I thought though, you guys post a lot and quickly, a lot of it stuff that's already been said before.

Maybe an unvote is in order? People see your vote on Panzer as legitimate, and are judging his wagon in that light, not realizing you haven't changed it since post 38. Or have you since decided that your vote has merit, and you like it on Panzer?

What page are you on now?

----

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

Also, subgenius is already being replaced.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP:

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

[GIEFF]

Here are the 5 current votes on the Panzer wagon.

ting =) (Post 38)
subgenius (Post 170)
Springlullaby (Post 815)
Zilla (Post 856)
qwints (Post 860)

I also believe Dourgrim prefers a Panzer lynch to a Zilla lynch, but is voting Zilla in an effort to end the day.

Dourgrim's previous Panzer vote (Post 691)

4 of these 6 votes I have questions about.

• qwints' vote is scummy and I don't buy it. Still waiting for you to explain yourself, qwints.
  
• ting's vote is from post 38. Are you still happy with it there? And don't give me the "still reading" excuse again; you have posted in the game numerous times since post 38, and if your goal is to catch scum, you would be using your vote in that regard. And if you don't want to vote because you want to have all the information, you would not have so casually left your vote on a player that has reached L-2 TWICE now.
  
• subgenius is no longer in the game, and his vote was 30 pages ago.
  
• springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?

I would be willing to lynch either Panzer or Zilla, although I would still prefer B_B or mykonian. I want to hear qwints' answer first, too; he provides the most information if scum, I think. Zilla is almost certainly scum, and B_B/Panzer are almost certainly town.

But here is the info I think we would gain from a Zilla lynch or a Panzer lynch. A zilla-scum lynch gives us the most useful info.

Zilla-scum would implicate qwints very heavily. If qwints was also scum, B_B and Panzer would shoot up the town-list too, based on qwints' late, scummy, quickhops onto their wagons. Zilla-scum would townify Goat heavily,

And Zilla-town implicates Goat heavily, B_B moderately, Panzer moderately, mykonian moderately, and Dourgrim lightly. It townifies springlullaby and qwints.



Panzer-scum implicates mykonian heavily, B_B moderately, and I think Goat slightly. It townifies me, Dourgrim, and springlullaby.

Panzer-town implicates myself heavily, subgenius moderately, Dourgrim lightly. I don't think it townifies anybody. Maybe mykonian.


There is probably more information that can be gained via digging into what some of the less frequent posters have said, too.

[GIEFF]

Well, it obviously doesn't implicate me to myself; I'm just guessing it would do that to others based on the fact that I pushed for his lynch so strongly.

Plus that you were right.

What do you mean by this? I am confused.

[GIEFF]

It made me think about you calling Dourgrim "Dourscum." (And yes, I brought it up again...). If you proofread your posts to make sure you don't mess up a quote or something, then how did you miss the "Dourscum" thing?

This was very early in the game, and I didn't know everybody's name (as subgenius can tell you, too). I probably scanned the post and just didn't see any mistakes. Dourgrim and Dourscum look very similar when you're reading quickly to see if you messed up a quote. One big "D" followed by a bunch of little letters with an "m" on the end.


Slips are important because they reveal what the poster is thinking at the time. My Dourscum slip reveals the fact that I was thinking Dourgrim was scum. No big secret there; it was the whole point of my post.

(I wrote "Dourgscum" instead of "Dourgrim" in that latest mention, but noticed it immediately and changed it).

-------

Maybe you missed this, mykonian, so I'll repeat it:

Plus that you were right.

What do you mean by this? I am confused.

[GIEFF]

springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?

He did not express annoyance at the length of post, he said that he wouldn't read them and justified it by saying that he shouldn't be expected to.

I would lynch him on that alone.

My old remarks against him are still valid, but I don't much care.

But he had already said he wasn't reading posts. 4 times.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 90#1505290
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 57#1505957
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 62#1507962
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 43#1508343

And others have already called him scummy for it.


Why did you only focus on this latest time he said he wasn't reading posts, and ignore the first four times he did it?

------


mykonian, I understood what you meant now; you meant I was right about Panzer having lied. No need to answer.

[GIEFF]

But I myself already confirmed that I wasn't lying about Panzer. I linked to a previous post where Panzer agreed with me. Why did you ignore that post, but used this latest post to justify a complete 180 on me?

[GIEFF]

B_B, mykonian, Panzer, and Zilla are my 4. qwints could be on that list too, pending his response to my question.

mykonian's 180 still seems way too abrupt to me. I know Panzer himself just admitted I was right, but he had ALREADY admitted it, many pages ago. mykonian ignored it then, and he ignored it every time I brought it up subsequently.

[GIEFF]

I did' that then, because I thought: "Panzer can never have said that, it must have been out of context"

As I've said many times before, you were not interested in having a discussion. You were only interested in keeping your pre-set view on the situation, and refusing to take in any new information. This is not how a townie should play. Truth should be your main objective, not consistency of your case.

It is flat-out ridiculous that you refused to even consider my point of view, and argued with me over it for 30 pages, and now suddenly are completely convinced, going so far as to call ME townie and PANZER scum.

I can't wrap my head around a townie playing that way.

[GIEFF]

each time I tried to tell GIEFF what went wrong, what the misrep was, he didn't explain to me how I was wrong

This is laughably wrong.

[GIEFF]

It may be worthwhile to skip the pages of back-and-forth between Zilla and Goat, and just read their summaries later on.

[GIEFF]

I'd still like to hear qwints answer. He has gone from not at all a lynch candidate to very much a lynch candidate in the past few days without a chance to try to explain himself.

qwints, here are the posts I'd like you to respond to:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 46#1515946
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97#1515997
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 64#1516864

I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer

WOW, that is scummy.

Please, go into some more detail about why you find Panzer scummy. You haven't mentioned him once in the last 17 pages.

What has changed about Panzer besides the fact that his wagon has suddenly started growing? I don't have time to look back now, but did your vote-switch to B_B come at a similarly opportunistic time?

Look at qwints' only two votes so far in the thread:

qwints votes BB. BB had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned BB at all prior to this vote (admittedly, this was just his 3rd post or so, but he had mentioned 2 other players as looking scummy). There is no new reasoning presented to justify the B_B vote, just parroting.

qwints votes Panzer. Panzer had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned Panzer at all in the 17 pages prior to his vote. There is no new reasoning presented to justify the Panzer vote, just parroting.


This is EXTREMELY scummy. It looks like qwints has no interest whatsoever in scumhunting; he just repeats points others have used to justify hopping on a growing wagon.

He's done this to B_B and Panzer, yet not Zilla. I don't know if this is relevant now, but once we know the alignment of any of these 4 players, I think this could be good to look back on.

FoS qwints

I would very much like to hear qwints' response to my question about the similarities between his only two votes in this game.

• B_B wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.
  
• Zilla wagon grows, qwints says "this seems more about abrasiveness than scumminess." B_B was just as abrasive as Zilla; where was this excuse then?
  
• Panzer wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.

Very little content from qwints, just about no original points raised, he doesn't appear interested in scumhunting, and he loves jumping on building wagons, late enough to be sure they're going somewhere, and early enough to avoid the icky responsibility that comes from hammering or putting someone at L-1. Niiiiiice and comfy, those extra votes at L-4.

[GIEFF]

I would like to see mykonian in more lists. Nobody should flip opinions that quickly; going from GIEFF-is-scum and Panzer-is-town to GIEFF-is-town and Panzer-is-scum in the span of a single post. mykonian's excuse for this change was that Panzer admitted I was right, but that is completely bogus; Panzer had already admitted this, and I had already pointed out the fact that Panzer admitted this.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that mykonian changed his mind so quickly soon after I showed how flawed his case against me was.

Yet the flaws in his case were not the reasons mykonian gave for finding me to be town.



This is pretty meaningless at this point, but mykonian has become my preferred lynch candidate, so

unvote

.

vote mykonian

.


Panzer, what do you think about how rapidly mykonian changed his mind?

[GIEFF]

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia".

How could you possibly think that?

I quoted a post where you say "Panzer never said I thought you antitown." I said this is false, and quoted to a post where Panzer says "mykonian is calling GIEFF antitown." It's clear as day that my intention is to show that you are incorrect (whether intentionally or accidentally).

How could you misinterpret that? Also, I've already addressed this in Post 848

You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

It should have been resolved before that. What about this post by Panzer?

He said:

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

I pointed this out to you in Post 844, but you chose to ignore it.

[GIEFF]

mykonian is scum, guys. He's shown he has no interest in scumhunting. He irrationally defended Panzer for pages and pages, even after Panzer himself admitted the attack was justified.


And now he's suddenly completely reversed his position.

But mykonian, this position reversal should only be related to my case on Panzer, right? You reversed it because Panzer showed you something about my case on him that you didn't realize previously? But

this cannot be correct.

Earlier in the thread you were convinced my Panzer case was legitimate, to the point that you evenunvoted me.

And when you presented new reasons for voting me, the case on Panzer was not among them. The reasons you gave were the way I exited the Panzer case, and the fact that I voted for both B_B and Zilla. Again,

you re-voted me for reasons completely unrelated to pushing my case on Panzer

.

So why do you think I'm pro-town now? Don't these new reasons you gave when you re-voted me still apply? Or did you just prove to everybody that these "new reasons" were BS, and you never felt them to be true?

In what way does Panzer admitting my original case on him was valid negate the fact that I exited his case, or that I was on Zilla and B_B's wagon?

-----
Cliff notes:

A = blowing the Panzer case up too far
B = exiting the Panzer case
C = being on both the Zilla and B_B wagons

mykonian voted GIEFF for A.
mykonian unvoted GIEFF because he realized A didn't apply.
*time passes*
mykonian votes GIEFF for B and C.
*time passes*
Panzer proves to mykonian that A doesn't apply.
mykonian unvotes GIEFF because A doesn't apply, completely ignoring his "case-extending" B and C excuses.

You never believed B and C, mykonian.

You just said that you did (i.e. lied) as they were convenient justifications to explain your vote for me, which was obviously motivated by other reasons.

Namely, the fact that you are scum and I am not.

[GIEFF]

3) Saying that L-4 votes are scummy because they are less scummy than L-1 or hammer votes is an argument full of WIFOM.

Not at all. I didn't say L-1 or hammer votes are scummy; I just said that they bring responsibility and scrutiny the following day. You injected the WIFOM yourself, which again is a great tactic to use as scum if you're having trouble shaking an argument on its face. B_B did it earlier, and now you're doing it. Instead of addressing your scummy behavior, you just say "if I were scum, I wouldn't act scummy." You didn't like it when B_B did it, and I don't like it when you do it.

There

is

a scum motivation for jumping on wagons at L-4 or L-3. You get to add your vote to a lynch late enough to be sure it's really going somewhere, and early enough to avoid the later responsibility and scrutiny that comes from being one of the latest to put a vote on.

I'd also like to hear you answer Goat's questions. We have 5 days until a deadline.

-----

That was nothing new. The last sentence makes that clear.

If it was "nothing new," then why did you list two new reasons for finding me scummy, and leave out your original reasons in your list of players?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you unvote me earlier?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you re-vote me?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you continue to hammer the same point after I showed you over and over again that it wasn't valid?

[GIEFF]

1. Fair enough. I don't know why you didn't put that in your player list, though.

2. What? Why are you trying to fit everything into your theory? Why don't you objectively look at the facts and then use those to create a theory, instead of trying to get the facts to fit into your pre-ordained version of the truth? This makes no sense whatsoever, and is an admission of case-extending.

3. Hoping I was scum? My argument was ALREADY proved right, as I said.

4. Which "one point" have you tried to get me to understand? The points you have tried to argue against in the past were NOT the same points I was bringing up.

[GIEFF]

I thought the most likely that you weren't both town.

I would not be so sure about that. It is quite likely we are both town. Townies can be wrong when they call others scum.

After that, I could see Panzer more easily town then you, because your motives argument came quite late

It did not "come quite late." Why do you make me repeat myself so often? It was the same argument the entire time, as I have already said more than once.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 54#1493654
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 89#1494689

This is not the language barrier, this is you deliberately ignoring me so that you can repeat yourself over and over and over again. That's not how a townie plays the game.

the difference between a vote for calling GIEFF antitown, and a vote for not wanting to lynch mafia. I felt Panzer was slightly misrepresented and that this was part of the "mistake" in his early play.

This was never anything close to the argument I was making. It is completely, 100% irrelevant.

[GIEFF]

If I am 60% sure that Panzer is scum, then there is a 40% chance that we are both town.


I would call 40% "quite likely," and something with that high a chance of being correct should not be ignored, as mykonian did. It makes no sense for mykonian to assume Panzer is scum just because mykonian thinks I am town. Townies are often wrong.

[GIEFF]

I didn't read your first posts as an attack on motivation, more on the objective "lie". It was part why I then revoted you, like I said then. We are repeating things, because I try to explain to you I have never had malicious intent, and to try to explain that I'm not sure scum for being wrong.

But I've explained so many times that my case was always about motivation that I can't believe you didn't notice. My case was ALWAYS about motivation. Look at all the time I spent gathering quotes in this post to show you. It should be clear as day to you that my case was always about motivation.



I hate deadline lynches too. As we only have 5 days until a lynch, we should really decide in the next day or two so that we have time for the target to claim. You can add me to the qwints list, mykonian.

[GIEFF]

In short again, since I'm annoyed at repeating myself multiple times:

1. Telling someone, 'to prove you're town - kill yourself' is scummy.

You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if you realized that I was not telling Zilla to kill herself. I was demonstrating to her (and to everyone else) that her statement "I am sure I have caught 2 or 3 scum" is incorrect.

Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?

--

Look at the below question, which you may have heard a child yell back at someone who claimed they loved chocolate.

If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?

The point of this question is to show that a claim of love for chocolate (the conditional) is NOT correct, as demonstrated by the fact that the conclusion (marrying the chocolate) is ridiculous. Would you conclude that a child who asked the above question was really advocating for the chocolate-lover to marry chocolate?

Do you see the analogy between the above question and my post to Zilla?

[GIEFF]

Qwints:

Please answer the questions quickly. We don't have a lot of time, and I will not let you get away with lurking your way to a deadline. You are plenty active in other games. Answering these questions should not require you to re-read the entire thread, so you have no excuse not to answer them.

We need to commit to a lynch candidate by tomorrow to give that person enough time to claim. Right now, it is between qwints, B_B, Panzer, and Zilla.

[GIEFF]

It has been over 48 hours since militant's last post, almost 72 hours since subgenius' last post (which was also just to respond to a prod). 5 days to deadline is not the time to go inactive.

Mod, can we get prods on militant and subgenius?

-----

Qwints, please answer the questions goat asked you. I need to decide between you and B_B, and I need to do it soon.

[GIEFF]

Ah, thanks; I knew Sesnfan replaced in, but I forgot it was subgenius that he was replacing.

[GIEFF]

If I am 60% sure that Panzer is scum, then there is a 40% chance that we are both town.


I would call 40% "quite likely,"

Really? 40% looks to me more like "less likely, but still possible." If there are two choices, then one is likely and the other is less likely. Calling the less likely option of two choices "quite likely" seems...fishy?

mykonian said he was ignoring this possibility, i.e. assigning it a probability of 0%. The two choices are not the 60% and the 40%; the choices are the 40% and the 0%. 40% is quite likely, relatively speaking.

This all started because mykonian said taht he thought it unlikely both Panzer and I were town, and because Panzer looked townie, he concluded I was likely scum.

I gave two options: new theory, or adapted theory. I have reread then, to see what the most likely explanation of the interactions between you and Panzer were. What if Panzer was scum? etc. I thought the most likely that you weren't both town. After that, I could see Panzer more easily town then you, because your motives argument came quite late, and I didn't like your way of saying Panzer lied, and how that was an important part of the case. Feeled like scum used a towny mistake.

Where you unaware subgenius was missing for like 2 weeks, or that he got replaced?

Yes, I was unaware. I just went through the thread looking at everybody's iso-posts, ignoring the people who got replaced. I forgot to add subgenius to the list, and I just looked at the day of the week, not the actual date.

I'm not implying they're going inactive because of the deadline, I'm just asking them (really just militant now) to contribute now, as it's important.

[GIEFF]

Yes, and my point is that you shouldn't ignore the possibility we are both town. If you now think I am town, what does that have to do with you thinking that Panzer is scum?

[GIEFF]

ting and sensfan, how close are you to finishing your re-read? It would be ideal to decide on a lynch candidate today, so we can work out the claims and the actual lynch in the next three days.

And qwints, I think we still need your top 3 lynch candidates.

[GIEFF]

7 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer, SL, qwints)
6 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant, SL, qwints)
6 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer, bb, qwints)
5 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer, bb, GIEFF)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
2 GIEFF (Panzer, bb)
1 Goat (zilla)

I believe that is correct. Has Dourgrim done his yet?

[GIEFF]

CAREFUL, guys. I think that's L-1. NO MORE VOTES FOR PANZER.

Panzer, claim.