Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

Confirm.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote: Panzerjager

for accusations in the real game.

[Goatrevolt]

Isn't a vote basically an accusation?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't want to crucify SL for making a random vote in the midst of a small amount of actual discussion.

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious? How would a cop have information on 3 players before the game began? Why would a SK have information on 3 mafia members before the game began? How are you clearing GIEFF of being mafia under the assumption that he's "hunting mafia"?

Panzer: What are you basing your assumption that mykonian doesn't want to lynch mafia off of? Also, I can't tell if your last post is serious or not. Clarification?

[Goatrevolt]

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

Were you serious with your first post?

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

[Goatrevolt]

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?

I'm a little confused in that regard myself.

[Goatrevolt]

This is going to be a long post. I'm reading through the thread and pointing out things as I go:

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

Why did you assume mykonian's vote was serious? To me it seemed obvious it was a joke (though I'll admit I was thrown off by his later explanations), and I'm curious why this didn't even cross your mind.

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.

Right, I caught that reference. However, if you knew he wasn't serious, then why would you even bother to discuss other possibilities?

He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?

When you say "GIEFF is unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame" you are making the implicit statement that a cop could possibly out himself in pregame with information on 3 scum. My question was probing you to figure out how that would even be possible. In other words, why would you even consider cop a possibility, when a cop couldn't possibly have information on 3 players pregame?

I just don't get why you would even suggest the possibility of a cop, and then say why that reasoning doesn't work if:
1. A cop couldn't possibly fit the situation
2. You admit that you knew he was joking.
Why even discuss it in the first place?

He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do you know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.

Again, I'm talking strictly about your post. You talk about the possibility of GIEFF as a SK and then write it off as unlikely because a SK wouldn't out themselves so early. My question to you was along the lines of: "Why would a SK have information on 3 scum anyway?" Your reasoning for doubting the SK theory was because the SK wouldn't out themselves, instead of the more obvious answer of "the SK wouldn't have info on 3 scum". I was curious why that wasn't a part of your reasoning.

I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm voting for him, for cryin' out loud.

Ok. You had said "GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia" but I mistakenly attributed that to your own point of view, rather than your interpretation of mykonian's.

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

Why only a FoS?

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'm not sure on the theory, but I figure it's not all that meaningful anyway. At this point in the game we have no knowledge of there being a SK, so we don't hunt for a SK, we hunt for mafia. If there is a SK, and if we get to a point in the game where we know someone is the SK and know someone else is mafia and we have to make a decision between which to lynch, we can return to this discussion.

So, Macavity, you say we don't know whether or not there even is a SK, but then you vote Panzer based on the notion that if there is a SK it's him? Why would you vote for the "SK" when you yourself point out that we don't even know if there is one? Fishy.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

Why bother with this explanation if your post was a joke?

I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.

You don't catch scum without pressuring them first. Early in the game little things are all you have to go off of, and pressuring those little things is what eventually leads to bigger and more meaningful things. I'll agree that Dour is jumping on things that I wouldn't even bat an eye at, but I haven't seen any underlying scum motivations for his actions, at least not yet.

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

Why apply a second random vote to the same target? And why place a second random vote in the midst of legit discussion?

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.

Random votes and interactions in the "random phase" are surprisingly meaningful. Not placing a random vote actually denies the town potentially useful information.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.

There are other ways of telling. A SK has a specific win condition and will play in such a way to further that win con. SK's are interested in the death of everyone except for themselves. One potential telltale sign of a SK is not caring about who gets lynched as long as it isn't them.

One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?

Scum: An overarching term for anyone anti-town.
Mafia: A specific type of scum.

You are correct in that my assumption was that GIEFF's 3 players thing was referring to 3 mafia members. The standard setup for a 12 player normal mini is 9 townies against 3 mafia. When GIEFF calls 3 people scum, I immediately connected the idea that he's calling out the entire mafia team. It would have been unnatural for me to assume he's talking about 2 mafia + 1 SK or some other variation.

------

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock

Why are you voting for your SK suspect when you yourself admit we don't know there is a SK?

[Goatrevolt]

I actually understand what Panzer is trying to say, although I don't think he's explaining it very well.

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

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

@SL: Why is bad play indicative of scum?

[Goatrevolt]

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.

Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

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?

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Agree to some extent. A mislynch is unhelpful to the town, but isn't necessarily bad play on the parts of the people involved. Ironically, I think you just proved my point.

A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.

In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF: Top half of post 108. Thoughts?

[Goatrevolt]

You're wrong. I'm not trying to clear Panzer or answer for Panzer. Everything I said in that post was basically a clarification or a clearer way of saying what Panzer had already said. I thought you were voting for Panzer based on a complete misunderstanding of what he was trying to say. It's not scummy for me to put a stop to that and clear up misconceptions.

However, it turns out I was wrong and you were voting him for more legit reasons. I see the point you're making. I don't think it's necessarily conclusive. I'll wait and see what Panzer has to say about it.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

So you acknowledge it was a joke, yet you're simply choosing to take it at face value in spite of that? You realize he was joking, but you're still pressuring it as though he was being serious? How does that actually help in catching scum at all? Why do you expect a joke vote to be backed with solid logic?

Also, why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?

[Goatrevolt]

Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell in my view.

Really? Scum want to get the conversation going? Why is that?

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.

What bothers you about it?

[Goatrevolt]

1. So they can lynch someone. So they can appears to be scumhunting. Don't you share this view?

No, I don't. Useful discussion is anti-scum. Games where everyone lurks are the best for scum, because it's difficult to discern who is lurking town and who is lurking scum. Getting out of the random phase and into useful discussion is pro-town, because you get to the part of the game where you actually start catching scum. The only reason scum would push for that is to look town, not because it actually benefits them at all to promote discussion.

2. The slightly apologetic nature of it and the fact that it says about nothing game relevant.

Ok.

[Goatrevolt]

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

Please do.

why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?

Also, can you answer this?

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'm highly skeptical of the bolded words above. You're describing your own mentality, here, and regardless of whether or not you were wrong in what you did, you should be able to at least confidently describe your own thought processes.

Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?

I don't really have an issue with it, but I can understand the problem other people have with it. It can look like you're trying to create the impression that you are a less capable player and thus shouldn't be as closely scrutinized or punished for mistakes.

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.

I can agree with this.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

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 disagree. I'd like to hear GIEFF's response to the last sentence, though.

[Goatrevolt]

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

This is going into theory discussion, so I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say this: Try it and see if it works.

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

What if someone legitimately doesn't understand?

Also, I still want MacavityLock to answer those questions.

[Goatrevolt]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

[Goatrevolt]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Basically, anywhere he says that bad logic = scummy as a blanket statement I disagree with (likewise for good logic = townie).

As for the rest of his post, I'm not going to go through and pick out things I agree with. Rather, I'll bring up issues I have with other aspects of his post that aren't related to the above.

[Goatrevolt]

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

I think you're tunneling. I won't answer for Panzer, but I don't see that as conclusive.

Panzer: I do want to know, specifically, at what point you changed from thinking it was serious to a joke.

[Goatrevolt]

Eh, I guess you answered that already. Reading is fundamental.

Anyway:

At what point did you realize it was a joke?

Your response:

When I re-read it when you asked me. I just assumed that I would have felt the same way twice.

However in an earlier post when I asked you, you said:

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

Which doesn't fit with your above statements.

[Goatrevolt]

mykonian: Nobody is going to make an obvious lie on purpose. Your argument in defense of Panzer is essentially: "He acted scummy, and scum aren't going to act scummy because people attack scummy play." The error is that nobody acts scummy on purpose, but scum do act scummy by nature of what they are trying to accomplish vs. what a townie is trying to accomplish.

Spring: I'm curious what YOUR stance on Panzer is?

[Goatrevolt]

Posting notes in thread seems to be the hip thing to do. I'm going to start posting notes from my math classes in here.

[Goatrevolt]

The point in my djekha suspicions is that his 'too eager' accusation came at a moment when someone has critized someone else for an action that he was going to commit.

I am so confused right now. What criticism? How do you know what actions Dejkha was going to commit?

[Goatrevolt]

Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage

This is true. I'm suspicious of some of the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer. Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).

I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally, I did not find it conclusive, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.

I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now. I think Panzer has been scummy, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet. Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle. I want to scour the thread first and try to get a better feel. Furthermore, I'm still suspicious of MacavityLock's transformation from "Panzer is SK to Panzer is also top pick for mafia" and I want him to answer my questions. Hearing from Zilla would also be good.

Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him

slips were minor tells

Really? What changed? Compare the above bolded to the below from early game:

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

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

@subgenius: I disagree with your assessment that Panzer's attack on SL was some deflection tactic. He got called out for not scum hunting and was pressured to do some scum hunting of his own. That's what he came out with. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that both town and scum are going to at least put up an effort at scumhunting after being called out. It's pretty much a null-tell for me. However, I do somewhat agree with your underlying point that Panzer was doing little to no actual scumhunting prior to getting called out, as evidenced by him attacking SL 3 pages later.

@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?

------

At any rate, I'm keeping my vote on MacavityLock for now. The case on GIEFF sounds more like frustration at his playstyle rather than legit suspicion. I don't see how trying to convince others to see your point of view is scummy, at all.

[Goatrevolt]

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

I think it'll be more distraction than value. Also, why did you attribute my quote to Beyond_Birthday?

since when is this a serious vote? don't make it one.

What? That's about as serious as a vote can possibly get. He legitimately unvotes a player to place that vote and none of his reasoning is a joke. The only thing from that post that I can see as a joke is the "OMGUS" bit, but that appears to simply be tacked on and not the main reason behind the vote.

Why do you think it's a joke?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I'll let Dourgrim field that question. But rest assured, that wasn't a joke. Dour himself admitted that he doesn't like joke votes.

[Goatrevolt]

Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.

I'd rather you read through the game and provided your own opinions before people start trying to influence you with theirs.

[Goatrevolt]

No dice, I want to see where people stand before they try to appeal to me. If their case has any merit, they should be able to present it themselves.

People have presented cases in the thread with varying levels of merit that should give you a fairly solid indication of where they stand.

Having people tell you before you read the thread what to look for or who they think is scum is simply going to bias your opinions. If I give you this amazing case about why X is scum, then when you read through the thread you're going to do so with my ideas fresh in your mind. It can and very likely will color your perspective.

You will see who people suspect and where people stand when you read the thread. Knowing beforehand is unhelpful.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just mad that I'm trying to shut down your attempt to get the abbreviated summary of the game rather than just reading it for yourself?

You're pushing for information that is available in the thread, and that you can easily see by simply

reading the game

something I would expect any replacement to do. You also have completely ignored the reasoning I gave for why I think it is a bad idea. Please read that, then get back to me.

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Why does me having no votes matter at all? What don't you like about my attitude? Is agreeing to your ever whim the mark of a townie?

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

Have you ever read a book after having someone explain the entire storyline to you and what to look for? It's a lot different than reading a book completely unawares. You are influenced by what you expect to see and things you were told to look for. It colors your perception.

For example: If I tell you: "Hey MacativyLock is scum. Check out the way he does this and this when you read through the thread," then when you actually read the thread you might say "ah yeah, I see him doing it there!" and come to the conclusion that he's scummy. However, if you read completely unbiased, you might pick out some town tells of ML or get a completely different read on him, then you did since I told you what to look for in the thread.

Seriously. I can't make this simpler. Just read the game. If you were uninterested in reading the game, you should not have replaced in.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

Wrong. The source of information you desire is already in the thread. I don't see how I'm stopping a source of information that is readily available to you by simply reading the game.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

I feel like I'm a broken record...You probably see where this is going already. I've explained my vote on MacavityLock. I've given stances on the top vote getters. This information and more available by reading the thread. LOL.

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

That is absolutely no different than the rest of the game. We all started out with no information on each other and have learned much by playing the game. You have nothing to distinguish one poster from the other, because you haven't read the game and learned information allowing you to distinguish one player from another...

All you're asking for is to have other players tell you how to think. Is that seriously what you want?

[Goatrevolt]

This is interesting. I'm going to reset my counter for the replacement.

Unvote

Why does replacement warrant reset?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Read my posts. Go to the quick reply section, select Display posts by: Goatrevolt and you can look at all my posts in isolation. If you want to know where I stand on a whole slew of issues I suggest you look there. I'm not going to slave away at a summary when you have complete access to that information yourself.

I have no clue what you mean by "own their case." I copyrighted my case on page 4 and will prosecute any attempt to replicate it without express written consent. I am in full ownership of it.

He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

I also want to point out that this is wrong. Somewhere on page 10/11 I made a post that completely outlined my opinions on Panzer and others. Did you even look at the last few pages before just making this baseless assertion?

--------

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat's too aggressively defensive

Paradoxical buzzwords with no backing are pretty much meaningless. If you want to call me aggressively defensive, define what aggressively defensive is and show me how scum are more likely to do it than town.

, 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.

It's funny how you admit your vote is bad, but justify it by saying "other people have bad votes" and then try to suggest I'm scum because you think my vote on MacavityLock is bad, when you don't even know the reasons I was voting him.

"Flying under the radar" couldn't be further from the truth. I'm one of the most contributing members of this game. Obviously, you wouldn't know that, having not read it, and making no effort to acquaint yourself with any of my posts this game, even though your vote is on me.

My reasons for voting BB are not poorly made. They are accurate depictions of his play, and he made no effort to dispute them in his last post.

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.

The only thing I can get behind is the last one, because seeing his reads, he really does seem to have a lot of fence-riding stances.

What is wrong about my first two claims then. If you disagree, please enlighten us why.

However, the vote basically being an aside at the end makes that vote switch seem really strange, and it's possible he's just giving up the ghost on a MacCavity wagon that didn't pan out.

I'm noting the irony that you are defending BB and attacking me on the basis of "the MacvityLock wagon not panning out", when BB's last post suggested ML was his most suspicious player. You don't seem to have any issue with him expressing suspicion of ML, but you do have issue with me doing so. Face the facts, my vote on ML has absolutely nothing to do with your suspicion of me whatsoever. You are entirely suspicious of me because I "pissed you off" by not giving you what you wanted. You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.

You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote. Since then, you have attempted to back up your vote by:

1. Saying I haven't provided content, have been floating through this game, or haven't provided my take on top wagons. You even mentioned that I hadn't done so in the last "2 or so pages," however, directly within the last two pages is a post by me providing exactly the kind of summary you are looking for. I called you out for this in my most recent post; you ignored it. You're not taking the facts into consideration, because they debunk your emotion-driven case. Quite frankly, I have provided a wealth of content, have not been floating through this game (many players are guilty of this, whom you appear uninterested with), and have in fact provided my take on the top wagons. So you tell me, why are you ignoring this information?

2. Calling into question the solidity of my vote on MacavityLock, under the basis that I am alone on the wagon (as if more votes lend more validity), and that I haven't explained my vote (I have, multiple times). These are errors that could be cleared up by reading through my posts (something I gave you simple instructions on how to do in my last post) and figuring out for yourself. I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.

3. Saying my reasons for voting BB are poorly made. You haven't backed this up. Nor did you ask me to elaborate further on my reasoning. So how do you know those reasons are poor, and why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.

Those above 3 reasons are all weak, and you have shown a blatant willingess to

ignore

the evidence suggesting you are wrong.

Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted. Rather than BS clearly flawed reasons to keep your vote on me, based not even on misinterpretations, but on a willful ignorance of the actual state of the game and the actual evidence in it, I suggest you come clean and admit that your vote is entirely because I made you mad.

[Goatrevolt]

I want to point out that I am still suspicious of MacavityLock, despite moving my vote off of him. I still have issues with his interactions with panzer and the responses he gave to me when I pressured him on it originally, but I don't really see the point of keeping my vote on him while he is absent.

I reread part of the thread today, which led to my vote on BB, for the three reasons I gave.

[Goatrevolt]

Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.

If someone accuses me of something that I contest the accuracy of, I will throw it back at them and make them explain it. That's not scummy at all. When you accuse me of "aggressively defensive" behavior and imply that's scummy, you bet I'm going to ask you to explain yourself. What, did you expect me to just let it slide?

As for what you have already said, I disagree entirely. You say that scum want to shut down the possibility of them being scum. Yes, that's correct. You then go on to imply that townies do not want to also do this, which is wrong. I have never once been lynched as town. There's a reason for that. It's because I defend against cases people bring against me and I shut down "possibilities for me to be scum." It's not scummy of me to do this. Avoiding lynches is a very important characteristic of a townie. I react strongly against arguments brought against me in every game I'm in. And it's not scummy for me to defend myself.

, 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.

It's funny how you admit your vote is bad, but justify it by saying "other people have bad votes" and then try to suggest I'm scum because you think my vote on MacavityLock is bad, when you don't even know the reasons I was voting him.

It's funny how you misrepresent my argument. Wait, no it's not.

Misrep? Where? I've bolded some key passages for your reading pleasure.

1. I said you admit your vote was bad. The bolded sections suggest this. You said people are attacking you because your vote was bad. Now, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were explaining their take on your vote, not your own take on it. So you don't think your vote is bad, just they do. The 2nd bolded section, however, is where you say their vote is bad "as well." The "As Well" suggests that their vote and your vote are both bad.
2. Justify it by saying other people have bad votes. Because X makes a bad vote doesn't mean you are justified in likewise making a bad vote.
3. You've said numerous times my vote on MacavityLock was bad. I don't need to really prove this.
4. You've given no knowledge that you actually understand the situation or reasons I voted MacavityLock, proving that your capability to assert number 3 is flawed.

Please point out where I have misrepresented you.

Further, you refused to justify it, and hardly even justified your vote switch. You continue to be cryptic about why you were voting Macavity. I really think you never bought your case to begin with, you certainly dismissed it fast enough if your reasons for voting Birthday are stronger than those on Macavity.

I haven't refused to justify my vote on MacavityLock. In fact, I have already justified that vote in at least 2 places (maybe 3) within the thread. I'm leaving this open to you. You can spend the 2 minutes looking it up, or you can continue to play in ignorance. I can't be cryptic about something I have already stated clearly within this thread.



My reasons for voting Birthday are not necessarily stronger than my reasons for voting MacavityLock, they are simply more relevant. ML is absent, could possibly have flaked, etc. and it's not really providing a whole world of information for me to keep my vote on him. I haven't dismissed my case on MacavityLock. I've pushed it aside after 5+ pages with no response. And even if my case on BB is stronger (it may very well be) I don't see how that means my case on ML was originally weak at all.

In fact, if you want to prove that my original reasons for voting MacavityLock were weak, then go back through the thread and find them, and show me how wrong I was. Otherwise, you can cut the unsupported accusations.

Just because you've got vocalized opinions does not mean nobody is looking at you. I've read a few criticisms, but they seem half-hearted, and easily distracted by other things. Nobody has really given you a good once-over from what I've seen.

Then you do it.

I wouldn't say he needs to because it's a rediculously weak accusation to begin with. If you want him to respond, you've got to give him something to respond to, not just three off-the-cuff one-liners.

If it's a ridiculously weak accusation, then he should be able to easily dispel it. They may be 3 1-liners, but that doesn't mean they are weak. I'm accusing him of some pretty heavy stuff. Does how long a case is affect how good it is?

Absense of scumhunting: although he's been playing detached, he's been behind his fair share of accusations and gone digging for clues. You need to establish his lack of scumhunting.

What clues has he dug for? I've seen a lot of detached summary, and a couple of places where he actually asked players questions.

You need to elaborate on the so called "Suspicious disengage" also.

He was voting for Panzer. GIEFF produced additional reasons against Panzer. BB disagreed with those additional reasons and unvoted. It's suspicious because the additional reasons didn't make the original reasons (that BB was voting based on) any less valid. It's also suspicious because the timing of his jump off the Panzer wagon was at the time when the wagon was naturally dying down anyway, and he did so for weak reasons. His suspicion of Panzer didn't look natural at all. If he was actually suspicious of Panzer for the reasons he voted him, then additional reasoning he disagreed with wouldn't change his mind, prompting an unvote.

I'm going to come right out and say right now that I absolutely hate your playstyle, where you make generalized claims and wait for people to disprove them. It's tedious menial work, it jams up actual scumhunting, and it makes you unaccountable.

I only make claims if I believe them to be true. People only attempt to disprove my claims if they think I'm wrong, in which case scumhunting occurs as we get to determine the motivations and reasoning behind why people agree or disagree. I also frequently ask people direct questions to get a feel for their mindset, and I also frequently make very specific claims about people. In no way am I ever unaccountable. I am fully accountable for everything I say.

I do find it humorous that you are attempting to generalize my playstyle in one paragraph under the impression that I only make generalizations (which is untrue). I also am not surprised at all that you hate my playstyle. I understand that I make it frustrating for people who attack me, because I insist on answering every point thrown against me, and generally do so thoroughly. It works though. I've caught 3 scum recently based simply on the manner in which they attack me. So i don't consider it a waste at all.

He actually cared to explain why he thought Macavity was suspicoius, while you disengaged at the drop of a hat.

I've had my vote on MacavityLock since like page 4. In fact, I probably had the longest standing vote in the game. Disengage at the drop of a hat is a gross misrepresentation based on a flawed knowledge of the game. This has been a constant theme in your attacks.

Face the facts, my vote on ML has absolutely nothing to do with your suspicion of me whatsoever.

Who said it did?

You have, repeatedly.

You are entirely suspicious of me because I "pissed you off" by not giving you what you wanted.

Someone came late to the party, welcome aboard. I said that.

Glad to know we agree. So why do you insist on adding BS reasoning to your case, then? Your suspicion of me is entirely based on frustration with my playstyle, and anger at me not giving you what you wanted. Why does this make me scum, and why do you insist on using flawed external reasons to try to make your vote look like more than it actually is?

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

Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town.

This is a first for me, I'm intrigued. Let's examine:

You're pushing people on stupid non logic

Back this up. You don't know my reasons for voting MacavityLock, so you don't know this to be true. Furthermore, I have expressly stated that "logic" is not necessarily going to be the basis for my votes. Scum can have great logic, and townies can have poor logic. If I were voting on logic alone, I would be voting for you right now, because you've shown consistently poor logic in attacking me. What I mean by that is you're attacking me repeatedly based on a completely flawed understanding of my play this game, which is facilitated by the fact that you don't even know how I've played this game.

you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you

Nope. I have been doing distinctly the opposite this game, especially in regards to Panzer. Back this up.

and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static

Nope. I've tried to bring clarity and get to the heart of the matter throughout the thread, and I feel I have succeeded in plenty of circumstances. Quite a lot of the cases that have taken place in this game are based off of questions I have originally asked.

and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you.

Yes, ma'am. You are quite hypersensitive yourself, judging by the way you jumped all over me because of playstyle differences and frustration.

You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.

Again, welcome to the party.

Again, why do you keep trying to make your vote out to be more than it is, with weak external cases?

I read that, it's not what I'm looking for, if you mean 240 (I don't see why you're so adamant about not posting any link or anything, you act like this information shouldn't be freely accessible, only the worthy should be able to know your stance, and you must make the sacred pilgrimage to page whatever to obtain such knowledge).

And you act like I have to provide it because you asked for it, when you have shown the capability of finding it for yourself. Originally, I refused to provide it, because I wanted you to read the thread free of outside influence. Now I'm doing it because I want to see how long you are willing to attack me without having any knowledge whatsoever about what you are attacking me over. I'm working on the base assumption that a townie is interested in knowing whether or not they have legitimate basis for a vote, whereas scum don't seem to really care.

That post's basically "I'm suspicious of this!" but is full of empty accusations. To be honest, if that really is your idea of the state the game is in, I'm not buying it.

I can't remember the post offhand, but I believe I mentioned how I think Panzer's actions have been scummy but I'm not sold on his wagon based on the speed/lack of opposition/and I wanted the day to continue so we can hear from people who haven't said anything. That covers about 2/3's of the game. I think I reaffirmed that I was keeping my vote on MacavityLock, and that I was unsold on the GIEFF case that was starting to build up. That about covers the rest of the game.

Since that point, I think Panzer has been a lot more pro-town. I agreed with his push on BB, and although I disagreed with his vote on you, I think he came out of it looking pro-town. I think BB is scummy.

It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.

I'll admit that I could probably be a bit less stubborn and just give in to what you want, but likewise, you could be a little less stubborn, get over your qualms with my playstyle, and figure out for yourself where my positions are. THEN, once you've learned that, you can question me directly on those points and determine for yourself whether or not I'm accountable.

Quite frankly, I have provided a wealth of content, have not been floating through this game (many players are guilty of this, whom you appear uninterested with)

Many players whom you care not to name?

Militant, Macavity, Ting, Dourgrim (recent), springlullaby (since you replaced in). Possibly others, who I'm not thinking of.

Seriously, ever since I've started asking for information, you've yet to post anything concrete, instead you give all these vague ethereal shadow statements, perfectly fitting for scum trying to stay at a politically prime spot.

Except my vote on BB. Except my declaration that I want you to read the thread from an unbiased vantage point, of course. I don't see what has been vague about those.

You see, I think it's funny. I have a lot of information in the thread. You are accusing me of not providing information. I think a simple and elegant solution to this dilemma would be for you to read the information I have provided already in the thread. You want reasons for my vote on MacavityLock. I've given those. You want my opinion on top wagons (panzer), I've given that.

I also think it's funny that you are accusing me of being scum trying to remain under the radar, when I could have just provided you with a summary and floated away on my "under the radar cloud." Instead I opted for the moral high ground of asking you to read the thread from an unbiased perspective. Oh, the folly!

and have in fact provided my take on the top wagons. So you tell me, why are you ignoring this information?

Your takes are vague.

Then ask me questions. What's vague. What do you want to know more about. What do you disagree with. This isn't a 1-way street. You are not a databank that we all just dump info into and then you come out with a solution. If you think my response to X has been vague or shadowy, then why aren't you making an effort to divine how I "truly" feel about X?

Normally, if you're the only person on somebody, you've got to have a good reason. Seems like you dorpped it in favor of Birthday though.

So what's your good reason for being the only one voting me. You dislike my playstyle and somehow this difference makes me scum?

, and that I haven't explained my vote (I have, multiple times).

Again, vague and shoddy explanation.

Have you read it? I feel so proud. What was vague and shoddy about it?

(something I gave you simple instructions on how to do in my last post) and figuring out for yourself. I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.

You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.

Hahaha. If I summarize my points, will you read my original posts to compare? This could be a win-win mutually beneficial situation here.

And no, I'm not worried about getting facts wrong or any of that. Do you honestly think scum are incapable of summarizing something they have already posted?

Your entire case on me is built from the premise that I am some scared scum afraid to post in this thread and afraid to state my beliefs out of fear of getting caught. This is humorous in that, 1. had I simply provided the summary you asked for you wouldn't have even bothered attacking me, and 2. I have not shown any fear of posting my opinions or beliefs throughout the entirety of the thread, yet you are too stubborn to evaluate this on your own.

You're fucking joking. Seriously. First off, you didn't back up your lame reasons to begin with, and secondly, it's implied that you need to elaborate on your reasoning.

You keep calling my reasons lame. Why should I back up my reasoning to you? You've already made up your mind on them.

There are a few reasons why I haven't gone into further detail on my vote. One of them happens to involve the way you reacted to it, which I think tells a lot about you. The other reason hasn't come to pass yet, so I shall hold off for now.

So how do you know those reasons are poor, and why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.

I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.

Your second point is actually pretty good. I didn't intentionally use the word "us", but yes my mindset must have been from the perspective of "us vs. Zilla" since I subconsciously went for that over "me". However, you are suggesting that it was me from a scum mindset pairing myself with town, whereas an equally plausible answer is that it's me with a town mindset pairing myself with town, because I am town. Good point, though.

Those above 3 reasons are all weak, and you have shown a blatant willingess to

ignore

the evidence suggesting you are wrong.

Yes, those above three reasons that you just provided are all incredibly weak.

Was this sarcasm. Why use them if you know they are weak?

What evidence are you even talking about? You act like it exists, but you'll be damned if you have to actually bring it up or use it. Seriuosly.

I'll give you a summary in my next post.

From the posts I've read, he's extremely vague when he's not debating the smallest of minutia that doesn't matter in the slightest. Some of his phrases, like his comment on "Is original content actually pro-town?" seem so transparently scummy that I'm surprised nobody has picked up on him.

That's a bit of a misrep. I asked GIEFF "Is original content the mark of a townie" because he was using the case that Panzer hadn't provided enough original content. I think that was a highly relevant and useful question. It led to GIEFF looking through old Panzer games and getting a meta-read about Panzer's use of original content. That gives us fresh information on both Panzer and GIEFF.

I never asked "Is original content pro-town" in a vacuum as you seem to imply. And this is part of the reason I want you to reread the thread, because you are picking up on stuff like this that is perfectly reasonable, but out of context appears scummy to you. My personal opinion was that original content is not the "mark of a townie." As in, someone can be pro-town and display pro-town characteristics even by agreeing with other's cases and following those all game. I think the resulting discussion that came from me asking that question was a huge benefit to the game.

Reading him gives me a headache, again because of how he just focuses on the smallest and most trivial of things.

Trivial to you maybe. For example, you thought my "is original content" question to be trivial. I just showed above how it was highly meaningful to the game.

I almost want to ask for a replacement because I really don't like how this game is going, especially with all these really bad arguments. Something about how we got out of RVS isn't right, and I honestly think we haven't learned much of anything of real value.

I hope you don't replace out because of issues you have with my playstyle. I'm not trying to drive anyone off.

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

Damn, that was a long post. I decided about midway through the post that I'm going to give a summary to Zilla. I'll provide that soonish.

[Goatrevolt]

Underlining vague statements that need further explanation.

I want to point out that I am still suspicious of MacavityLock, despite moving my vote off of him. I still

have issues

with

his interactions with panzer

and

the responses

he gave to me when I pressured him on it originally, but I don't really see the point of keeping my vote on him while he is absent

Have issues - Think he is scummy because of

Interaction with Panzer - He voted Panzer under suspicion of Panzer being the SK. He also noted that we should not be hunting the SK. I found that to be scummy, as he is essentially doing exactly what he labeled as not pro-town.

The Responses - He answered my question by saying Panzer was also his top suspect for mafia as well as SK, reasoning that was notoriously absent from his original post. I asked him questions about this, and those questions are still outstanding. He hasn't posted since then.

Here's your precious 240, which supposedly has the substance I'm looking for. Vagueness is underlined.

Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage

This is true. I'm suspicious of some of

the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer.

Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).

ZILLA: WHY DOES THIS MEAN ANYTHING?

I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally,

I did not find it conclusive

, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.

ZILLA: YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTED ONE HECK OF A WEIRD HIERARCHY HERE

I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now.

I think Panzer has been scummy

, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet.

Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle.

Behavioral/mindset stuff from panzer - That is the stuff I explained in the remainder of that paragraph.

Why does this mean anything: He was asked to explain why he did something. His response used phrases along the lines of "I think I did it because" and "I probably was thinking this." I find that suspicious because he was asked to explain why he did something, but yet he was using wishy-washy language to do so. That suggests a mentality of him trying to make up reasons why he did something, not why he actually did it. Do you see what I mean? It's like if I asked you: Why did you eat that candy bar? If you said "because I was hungry" I would accept that explanation. If you said "I probably ate it because I was hungry" I would be suspicious. You know why you ate it, so why are you saying probably, suggesting a lack of understanding?

I did not find it conclusive - The next 2 sentences explain this.

I think Panzer has been scummy - The above two paragraphs explain this

Something seems off about... - I can see your scum-to-town buddy point. Scum often will do things like this, despite the fact that it actually does not make them look better at all. So yes, that is a valid point.

My argument is essentially a playstyle description of myself. I am a much better scum player than a town player, as evidenced by my win-loss records on this site. As town, I am better at identifying townies than identifying scum. What I often do is pick out people I identify as town, and then find scum via process of elimination. I generally identify townies based entirely on what could be classified as "gut." I get a feel based on things they say, or the way they say something or a post that seems unlikely scum would make because it draws unnecessary suspicion to themselves, or something like that.

In essence, I think Panzer has played in a scummy fashion. The logic adds up to him being scum: the inconsistencies, the inability to explain his behavior, etc.. My gut is saying no, though, which is part of the reason I have hesitated on the wagon. Despite his failings in explaining himself throughout the thread, I've felt some of his plays have seemed genuine. The logic suggests he is scum, but I hesitate on the gut aspect, and in addition I wasn't comfortable ending the day with a lot of open ends. You replaced in, but hadn't read up yet, Militant hadn't posted anything, Macavity had open questions posed to him, etc.

Here's a good point, but you JUST SAID that you didn't trust the wagon on Panzer. You've got some major cognitive dissonance going on here, and it's ironic you're pointing out another inconsistency while creating one yourself.

See logic v. gut above. Eventually there is a point where you ignore gut in the face of overwhelming logic. I will continue to pick at inconsistencies in case my gut is wrong.

All in all, I'm able to glean from this post that you think Panzer is scummy but that his wagon is scum driven, and you're voting MacavityLock for changing his mind about Panzer's scum flavor. Weaksauce. Then you challenge a few people and then say you don't suspect them. The whole nature of this post really seems like straddling a fence with your feet on both sides.

I don't think his wagon was scum driven. I don't have a terribly strong read on GIEFF, but I'm willing to accept his scumhunting as legitimate thus far. The other "driver" was myself, even though I never actually committed to the wagon.

My vote on ML wasn't weaksauce. I originally voted him for a glaring contradiction in actions and words (explained above). I continued to pressure him for merely changing his reasoning but keeping the vote when called out on his contradiction.

[Goatrevolt]

I really don't like your double standard, where you're allowed to be vague (unspecific, undetailed, whatever) and then demand others "refute" your claims through evidence when you haven't even provided any of your own (This is about your Birthday vote).

I will provide the extended reasoning eventually. I'm generally a very straightforward player. I think X is scum because of Y. I don't think Q is scum because of R. Sometimes that's ineffective. Lately, I've been trying out a new strategy of occasionally tossing in votes or statements, but not going into detail about them. The reactions to that can be pretty telling.

I think your double standard point is fine. I understand now what you mean by that, and yes, to some extent that is true. One thing, however, is that you specifically mentioned disagreement with 2 of my points on BB. I don't think I displayed any double standard whatsoever in asking for your reasons for disagreeing with those two points.

I'm a bit intrigued again why you dropped Macavity for Birthday and just let Macavity lurk off his accusations.

I'm not letting him lurk off his accusations. When he comes back to the thread, he will still have my questions looming, and I will still be here. My vote on him was accomplishing nothing, though. My vote on BB is much more productive.

I'd understand if Birthday was actually being crazy scummy, but your reasons are hardly even scum tells in themselves (lack of scumhunting? Town falls prey to this, and it's pretty subjective how much is enough.

I think BB has been as scummy as anyone has been thus far.

"suspicious disengage" from somebody you haven't voted for yourself is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. As for the fence-riding, some examples would strengthen your case.)

It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon?

It seems you've got a bone to pick with Birthday, but you haven't really made anything of a case on him other than "he looks scummy." Seems more of your gut? That's not going to win anybody to your side.

Nope. This one is based on his contributions, and has nothing to do with my gut.

I'll let mykonian respond to your case. I don't find it very compelling. Maybe if mykonian asked me to vote for him I would be more inclined.

[Goatrevolt]

It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon

The way you phrase it, I assume you're suspicious of BB for withdrawing his vote in a manner that indicates they may be paired, and that he was distancing for his vote. A lot of your logic contradicts itself, so I can't really tell if you're voting Birthday contingent on Panzer being town or scum.

It's completely independent of Panzer's alignment. It's possible he jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of an opportunity. It's possible he jumped off a townie when he no longer thought he could justify his vote. What I do know is that he jumped off Panzer based on a poor justification that suggests his initial reasons for voting Panzer were insincere. How panzer's alignment relates to this isn't terribly relevant and something that can be determined later.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm saying right now, no, I'm not going to forego commenting on the current game before finishing rereading, because this game is a mess. I know this stems from Panzer changing his tune about how he viewed your SK post. I know what I need to know. I think you guys don't even want to go back there because you don't even know what the case is about anymore. Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.

The panzer wagon and the Dour/GIEFF brush up would fit this description. The other "cases" present in the game thus far have been fairly clear.

[Goatrevolt]

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

[Goatrevolt]

As it stands, the Zilla vs. the world argument kinda overwhelmed the thread there for a bit, but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it. The cases being made are, as Zilla has pointed out, somewhat removed from the actual discussion, so everything's a bit on the hazy side (too much quoting and cross-referencing to be clear). GIEFF has made his points abundantly clear, and mykonian and Panzer have defended themselves against the case. The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't see this as being a "real possibility" at all. If both mykonian and Panzer are scum together, I will be very shocked. Why do you think we need to test this out, and what will we learn if, say, we lynch mykonian and he is town?

Regarding "Dourscum" I almost voted GIEFF when he told you it was accidental. However, his reasoning a few posts later was basically the one thing he could have said that would have made sense. I'm willing to accept that explanation for the time being.

[Goatrevolt]

First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum." Since my lack of scum hunting is a legitimate point, I will make no attempt to defend that. I have been lazy, which is not an excuse so I have no response.

I disagree. I think the role of a townie involves doing both (although looking pro-town is often directly associated with catching scum). Regardless, this isn't relevant. Moving on...

Point 1: BB may have jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of opportunity.
This is incorrect, and in fact allowing myself a mild amount of wifom, I think I would ride the wagon as long as I could and be talked of unvoting. As a scum partner, this would be perfect for distancing.
Point 2: He may have jumped off townie now unable to justify his vote.
Meh, counter productive scum play. Better is to defend Panzer, which my last posts does (oh noes! I have proven myself doing something scummy!)

I'm going to ignore these for now, because they aren't relevant to the discussion of "why did you."

My reason for voting Panzer is that Gieff appeared to have some decent points

Really?

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

This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.

Now would be a great time to "explain your playstyle" the way Dour would, as you claim. You officially make no sense.

Nowhere in your reasoning here do I see any mention whatsoever of GIEFF's points.

I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)

And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?

To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.

Now, you are saying the attacks bore no fruit, suggesting that you don't think GIEFF and Panzer's back and forth produced anything useful. And you're voting on GIEFF's logic, despite saying his back and forth bore no fruit? And then, you even go so far to say Panzer looked like a victimized townie. Interesting how your vote was on the victimized townie.

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.

2. You voted Panzer because of GIEFF's reasons for thinking Panzer was scum.

I'm guessing number 2 was your reason here, but I'll address either possibility.

1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.

2. You voted based on GIEFF's reasons for suspecting Panzer. I'm going to ignore for one second the fact that you never mentioned this when you voted for Panzer and haven't suggested this at all in the thread and that your constant disagreement with GIEFF suggests the unlikelihood you would barn his reasoning.

So, let's brush that aside and assume that you actually did use GIEFF's reasons to vote Panzer. Issue number 1: GIEFF providing additional reasoning to suspect Panzer that you disagree with does not invalidate his original reasoning for suggesting Panzer is scum, which you agreed with. Issue number 2: If his additional reasons prompted you to go back and reread the original reasons, leading you to realize that you disagreed with them, then you certainly voted based on a very shallow understanding of the reasons you voted for. In essence, your vote was extremely weak because you didn't even bother to verify the reasons behind it. For a 4th vote on a target, that is very suspicious.

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:

I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.

Oh snap!

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

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting: Admittedly not a huge selling point on its own, however I think it does add to the case when you also consider the scumminess of the rest of his play. Furthermore, he has constantly suggested that you shouldn't try to appear pro-town, you should try to find scum and let that do the talking. He's made no efforts to find the scum

Lack of solid stances: This is self-explanatory, really. He simply hasn't made solid stances this game. Look back through and see a lot of theory discussion, a lot of "you're wrong" or "this is stupid" and precious little, "I think you are scum."

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon: Read this post. To summarize: He made a weak vote to get on the Panzer wagon, and has suggested his vote was based off of GIEFF's reasons long after the fact, despite the fact that all evidence suggests this to not be true. He jumped off the Panzer wagon based on weak reasoning, and reasoning that show his initial voting reasons were really poor. He mentioned that he didn't think Panzer was going to be a lynch, despite placing the 4th vote on the wagon, having a 5th vote accumulate on the wagon, posting many times while keeping his vote on the 5/7 wagon (with others expressing suspicion and willingness to vote Panzer), suggesting clues about mykonian's alignment based on Panzer's alignment, and saying himself that every vote after the random stage should be a vote for a lynch.

So yeah, I think he's scum.

[Goatrevolt]

That's a much longer quote than I usually like to post, but my question is this: According to the GRIEFF scale of lying, I think this case more than qualifies BB as a liar. At one point he agrees that panzer was lying, and later he calls it a mere random vote. These points of view are contradictory, so clearly one of them is a lie. You have said it is scummy to inconsistently apply scum tells to different players, yet you continue to primarily pursue the Panzer wagon even though I think it is obvious that BB's vote against Panzer was far more serious than Panzer's vote against Miko. According to your cases, BB and Panzer are guilty of the same scum tell, yet BB lied about a vote which was cast after the random voting stage. Why do you continue to push the Panzer wagon? If any lie is worthy of a lynch, would you be equally content to lynch either of them?

This is an excellent point. I'm going to give you "grief" about one thing though. His username is GIEFF, not GRIEFF.

Questions: What is your own take on BB? Who do you think is scum? Despite posting this, why is your vote still on Panzer as well?

[Goatrevolt]

Beyond_Birthday placed the 4th vote on the Panzer wagon based on insubstantial reasoning, and then unvoted based on a post that should not have negated his original voting reasons. He has had wishy-washy stances throughout the game, has not contributed towards scumhunting, and has provided dubious and frankly unbelievable arguments after the fact in regards to why he voted Panzer in the first place. His reasoning looks like made up reasons to try to fit the holes in his play rather than legitimate reasons that he actually believed.

[Goatrevolt]

Goatrevolt constantly discusses meta and detracts from active scumhunting, while appearing to present an "aggressive" case that is actually based on very little actual information. Also refused very loudly to provide a summary of his opinion on the current state of the game.

I feel compelled to address this, mostly because I think you are wrong about BB and are dismissing my arguments against him purely because I have presented them and not based on what they actually say.

I will go ahead and explain right now why I didn't include the full rationale behind my vote on BB in the post where I voted him. There were 2 reasons. The first is to see how other people react to my vote. Who disagrees, who agrees? The second is to see how BB reacts to the bare vote. BB's reaction was to ignore it, telling us nothing. Zilla's reaction, however, was to completely dismiss it

without even knowing what it was about

. In her first post following my vote, Zilla didn't even ask me to further explain the 3 reasons I presented. Instead she said my vote was weak, and she didn't even know the reasons why I voted him.

In essence, Zilla dismisses my attack on BB entirely because she doesn't like my playstyle, and not at all based on the points I actually raised against him. I don't know if that relates at all to scum/town, but I will say that it is poor play. So, I think you should get over yourself and your hissy fit about not liking how I play and actually evaluate what I have to say, and not how I went about saying it.

Discusses Meta - Sure you're not confusing me with GIEFF? I have never once agreed or disagreed with a case based on meta, presented meta arguments against anyone, or even hinted at doing so. Come again?

Detracts from scumhunting - This is an entirely biased viewpoint based on your own perceptions of who is scum. If Birthday is scum, as I believe to be true, then your push on mykonian is what is detracting from scumhunting.

Aggressive case - What does it matter if my case is aggressive or not. My vote is based on a lot of information. Read post 345. My vote is certainly based on more information than your vote on Mykonian, which is entirely based on a weak circumstancial random vote and your dislike of him attacking you.

Loudly refusing - A loud refusal to do your will is clearly how we determine scum from town. Good thing you've adopted this principle, because the two players you have attacked this game (myself, mykonian) happen to be the two players who loudly disagreed with you. Disagreeing with Zilla...apparently scummy.

-------

I think people are ignoring a valid case against BB. I want to know why that is. I'm going to start with Zilla, who has consistently asserted my case is bad, but seems unwilling to even know what it's about. I think you need to step up and agree or disagree with it, and I want to know why.

And for posterity sake, here's what's bad about your case on Mykonian:

Asking you to vote him: I do this all the time as town. When someone throws suspicion on me but doesn't back it up with a vote, I will sometimes challenge them by telling them to go ahead and vote me. It forces them to commit to their suspicion. This is a null-tell completely.

First to mention a SK: It's a random vote. He could have said GIEFF was a jester trying to get himself lynched and that we should lynch him just to get him out of the way. Would you assume mykonian is a jester because he brought up jesters? For someone who has consistently lamented that we spent too much time stuck in a random phase mindset and how it's destroyed this game, I find it dubious that part of your case is based off a Random Vote. Such blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore, we don't know if there is a SK, so your vote based on the possibility of him being a SK is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason mentioning a SK changes the paradigm of the game is when people make it do so by lending credence to the notion. You're the one guilty of that, not him.

Defense of Panzer - your only possibly valid point. I don't think mykonian's defense of Panzer has been scummy. He has been consistent in explaining why he thinks Panzer is town. However, you then go on to say he's scummy for "trying to push attention on to others" and one of the others you mention is Panzer, which is laughable, considering how much he has defended Panzer and tried to get attention off of him.

Basically, I think your vote is entirely because you are still pissed off that people didn't just agree with you and give a summary of the game. You started with me, then you moved on to Mykonian. You've tried to supplement your case with hypocritical and weak justifications. You're doing the exact same thing you did with me. You're voting because you didn't like how he disagreed with you and after the fact you're using weak logic to try to make your vote seem more like it is. Why do you consistently do this? Or is your scumhunting entirely a process of attacking and voting for people who don't agree with your viewpoints?

[Goatrevolt]

Dourgrim: Post 345. Your thoughts?

[Goatrevolt]

And Zilla continues to ignore or brush aside what I say.

[Goatrevolt]

I'll just say I laughed when I saw BB agreed with my case on him, but Zilla simulposted with a large disagreement .

Wait a minute, Goat's stance on Panzer is a bit suspicious as well.

Goat, would you please give a current account of your stance on Panzer?

I just gave that to you. Post 295.

BB's agreement with my case on him and willingness to admit that he lied and was scummy is interesting, to say the least. I can't say I've ever had someone outright say "hey, you're right, I lied and I didn't care." Despite my confusion, I think the best play is to still lynch him. Willingly admitting to being scummy doesn't change the fact that he was scummy. Furthermore, I don't know why he bothered trying to create reasons for his play if he was just going to later say "yeah, I lied" anyway.

[Goatrevolt]

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

I'm sorry, but that's a load of shit. You're trying to argue some illogical "defense by association" type argument, based on the fact that I'm not attacking the people who are defending Panzer (essentially Mykonian), thus I'm also "defending Panzer????". Dourgrim is also not attacking Mykonian but thinks Panzer is scummy. I haven't seen you address this at all. Why not?

Me thinking A has been scummy, doesn't mean I also think B who is defending A is scummy. I'm completely shocked that you are even attempting to argue that. I don't think Mykonian is scum, and I'm not attacking him. How does that mean I'm defending Panzer? Please elaborate further.

[Goatrevolt]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

I've told you already. This is how I play mafia. When someone attacks me, I defend it and I do so thoroughly. This is why I've never been lynched as town before, because when someone brings up a reason to believe I'm scum, I point out why it's wrong. I also, as I've said, catch scum based on how they attack me. You are starting to move towards the scum spectrum based on the increasing illogical and absurd nature of your attacks. You have completely failed to address or even explain why me "aggressively defending" myself is scummy whatsoever. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with. With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you. You declined to comment, except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.

You accuse me of dodging questions. I have not dodged a single question all game. However, you've done a bit of dodging and deflection. Yes, that's right, I'm calling you out. This is the point where you turn around and say how my playstyle is scummy because I'm turning it back on you. Deal with it. Here's what I mean: Throughout this game, you've continued to attack me for poor reasons. I've defended myself against those reasons. No problems so far. Then, you ignore my defense (in essence, proving me right), and instead attack me for being too hypersensitive, or for defending myself too aggressively, or some other bullshit you use to justify your unjustifiable suspicion. That's deflection. That's dodgy. That's downright scummy. You attack me, which prompts me to defend myself. Then you say I'm scummy for defending myself, completely ignoring the weak reason you used to attack me in the first place.

As for your assertion that I haven't answered your question. I have answered it. I answered it immediately when you asked it. I linked to a fairly recent post that provides my opinion on Panzer that has not changed since when you had last asked me.

That post is my current opinion on Panzer.

And then I see you took a completely different post and just attacked it. You asked for my current opinion on Panzer. I provided a link to a post that gave my current opinion on Panzer. Then you attack a completely different post. Zilla, the misrep is all you.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

And this is weak, weak, weak. Your entire means of scum hunting is based on pairing players. Pairing players is dumb, meaningless, ineffective unless one of those players is dead. For example, you think I'm scummy based on ties to Mykonian and Panzer. I assume you mean if Mykonian and Panzer are scum it increases the chances that I am also scum. However, that is invalid, and useless suspicion until you know the alignments of Panzer and Mykonian, which you don't, unless you're scum.

So, to boil it down. Your suspicion on me is based on this:

1. Ties to players who's alignments you cannot know unless you're scum.
2. I defend myself against your accusations.
3. You don't like my playstyle

Does that look like a solid case to anyone? Looks pretty weak to me.

------

This is the point where Zilla goes nuts because I again am defending against her accusations in such a "hypersensitive" way, and there is a likely chance she ignores what I actually say in favor of just attacking me for defending myself.

I'll address other questions in my next post, I just had to clear this up first.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I agree with the gist of this. There's really no concrete evidence to support that one of Birthday or Zilla has to be scum. BB makes a good point about Zilla dismissing the case on him prematurely, however I still think the reason she did so was based entirely on her continued angsty attitude towards me. To back this up, I'll point out that she dismissed the case on BB before even knowing what it was about, simply because I was the one who suggested it.

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.

I disagree with this. You're saying that since the BB case involves WIFOM, we should ignore it. I would agree if the case on BB was based on WIFOM. The case on him is based on solid evidence suggesting he has been scummy. Evidence he agrees with. The WIFOM is entirely based on how he has chosen to defend himself (via not defending himself).

I agree, though, that we need to hear from lurkers and get some concrete opinions from them before we go ahead with anything.

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

Right now, she's 50/50 to me. She was at the top of my town list a while back, but the manner in which she continues to assault me with bad logic, and then call me scummy when I defend myself (but yet she ignores my actual defenses, likely because she knows I'm right) has struck me as scummy. If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.

In essence, as of late, I don't get the impression she's actually trying to determine whether or not I'm scum. I get the impression she's trying to push the idea that I'm scum. She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others. She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Eh, no, I don't really think she's scum. At least, I'm not interested in lynching her today. I thought Dejkha seemed pretty townie, and Zilla hasn't really been necessarily scummy, although I think she is dead wrong on nearly every topic. I don't want to let my personal aversion to her nitpicking at me affect my opinion.

She continues to attack me over not providing an answer to her question. However, in the my first post after she asked me a question (what is your current view on Panzer) I linked to a post (295) that gave my current opinion. That is providing an answer to her question. Maybe I didn't format my answer in the exact manner she wanted, but I answered the question, and it pisses me off to have her constantly assert I did not. She then proceeded to attack my post 240. However, I had linked to 295 when I answered her question, not 240, which made me even more frustrated.

I'm not going to answer her long posts anymore. If she has questions, I will answer them, but I'm not going back and forth. Basically, long story short is that she suspects I'm scum over things that are essentially a facet of my playstyle. No amount of discussion is going to change her mind on that.

For example, I always defend myself like this as town. Always. Springlullaby can attest to me defending myself in this exact same manner in our previous game. In fact, she FoS'd me for overreacting to her original suspicion on me. We had this exact same discussion. To be honest, I'm quite a bit more aggressive in my defense as town than scum. I leave you to check up on that at your own whim. I think Zilla is wrong in attributing "scum" ways to defend themselves and "town" ways to defend themselves. If the town way to defend yourself is to be softspoken, then scum are just going to defend themselves in a softspoken manner to appear like a townie. I believe that saying a player is too aggressive in their own defense is an entirely subjective argument.

She also thinks I'm detracting from scumhunting. I disagree with that. I think my pressure on Panzer/Macavity/BB beg to differ, but there's little I can do to change her mind. Likewise, I find her method of pairing players together to be a highly ineffective way to scumhunt prior to knowing the alignment of any of the players in question. I've never seen that actually work out.

If she thinks I'm scum because I don't play the same way as her, or don't do things the way she wants me to do them, then so be it. There's nothing I can do to change her mind. It's not even worth it for me to try.

Her only point against me that is unrelated to my playstyle is how I have handled the Panzer situation. To be honest, that is somewhat of a fair point. I do not have a solid read on Panzer. I think there are inconsistencies in his play. I also feel that he "reads" townie. Those are conflicting opinions. Do I go with the logic that says he's scummy, or do I go with my own gut that he feels townie? I made this known to her in Post 295, which is what I posted when she asked for a current opinion on Panzer.

----------

I agree that there are probably scum among the lurkers, who are having a field day sitting back and watching right now. I don't want to have us end the day with a lynch without getting them more into the forefront, first.

With that being said, I also disagree with Dour that long days = more helpful days. Not all discussion is helpful to the town. Longer days don't necessarily make it more likely that we catch scum, or make it more useful to catching scum later.

[Goatrevolt]

I do not believe this qualifies as a "fast wagon" at this point. 7 pages of Day One in a mini setup isn't fast, at least by my memory of typical game flow.

Long days = good for Town, and the longer the better

The first quote is from earlier in the day regarding the Panzer wagon. The 2nd quote is from your recent post. Can you explain the discrepancy here? In the first quote you are arguing that ending the day with a Panzer lynch at page 7 isn't a fast wagon, but now you argue that subgenius is scummy for suggesting that we end the day at 18 pages?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel). I don't feel confident enough either way to either vote for him or stick up for him.

Right now, I'd say Panzer is about 3rd/4th on my suspicion list, behind BB and Macavity (qwints), and roughly equal to the lurkers.

One thing I will say, though, is that I think "lynching for information" is a terrible idea. Every lynch gives information. When people end up being town, it really doesn't mean much in terms of linking players. For example, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, do we really know more about GIEFF and Mykonian? Isn't it plausible GIEFF was attacking Panzer town on town? Isn't it possible Mykonian was defending Panzer town on town? If Panzer were to end up scum, then yes, we'd learn a lot about both Mykonian and GIEFF. However, that's because he was scum. We got lucky that our lynch for info hit scum.

We should be lynching to hit scum. Regardless of who we lynch today, we will have information for tomorrow. Panzer only gives us a wealth of information if he's scum. In that case, we should be lynching him because we suspect he's scum, not because we want information from his carcass.

I will also say that we need to lay this SK stuff to rest. Wait until tomorrow. If it looks like we have a SK, then have at it. Mykonian bringing up a SK as means for a random vote really isn't cause to get suspicious, and the only reason it has affected the game like it has is because of how others have reacted to it.

[Goatrevolt]

Dour: It was mostly aimed at you, although I recall others supporting the idea of lynching for information (or at least saying Panzer was a good lynch specifically because of the information angle), which is why I didn't directly call you out.

I can understand your point of view, using information to decide between two players you consider to be roughly equal in scumminess. I simply don't feel that information as itself should be used as a point of suspicion.

I agree with what Panzer said. The amount of connections he has is irrelevant to his role. Saying he has connections with players doesn't actually affect the likelihood of him being scum. However, I fully disagree with his statement about town v. scum information. I feel the information you get from a mislynch can be useful but the information you get from a successful scum lynch is game changing.

[Goatrevolt]

finally, after two pages of asking, Goat delivers.

It's all I can do to hold myself back from going off on this. Grrrrr

The thing worth noting is how parts 2, 4, and 5 seem to take the stance that he's town on completely subjective guesswork.

That's not true. Number two is not based on subjective guesswork, but on my own personal feelings about Panzer's play being genuine. Along those lines, why do YOU think Panzer is town? I have a feeling your answer here is not so different than my number 2. Restating to it, OR linking me to a previous post where you describe this are both perfectly accepted answers .

Number 4 and 5 explain how it's a bad idea if he is town, and how it's a meaningless gesture if he's scum. If he's town, it's bad. If he's scum, then we would be equally as good off if we lynch for scum. It's my way of saying how lynching for information is strictly a poor idea. Nowhere do I assume he's town. I'm only defending him so far as defending against bad ideas that happen to relate to him. If someone suggests we lynch BB because his name is annoying to type out, I would defend him against that accusation, despite still thinking BB is scum.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, what does that say about GIEFF? If we lynch Panzer and he is scum, what does that say about GIEFF?

Your entire argument is from this perspective that I have been calling Panzer scummy, but yet have also been defending him in certain circumstances and this is somehow wrong. The implication is that if I feel someone is scummy, I must therefore agree with every point raised against them, which is certainly not true. I think some of his actions are scummy. I feel like other actions of his are not scummy. I have agreed with the former. I have argued against the latter.

Let's examine:

I pressured Panzer on the initial questions that led to the suspicion of him in the first place.

In at least 2 or 3 places in the thread I pointed out inconsistencies in his logic and called him out for them.

GIEFF said the "Dejkha is a townie" thing was a slip. I defended Panzer, because I did not believe it was a slip.

I defended Mykonian because I do not believe him to be scum, independent of Panzer's alignment. How you construe this as a defense of Panzer I do not know.

I pointed out that lynching for information is a bad idea. I've never once advocated lynching for information in any mafia game I have ever played. In this case, it so happens that it relates to defending Panzer against an information lynch against him.

So what you have is me attacking Panzer on aspects of his play that make him more likely to be scum, and me defending Panzer on aspects of his play that I do not think make him likely to be scum. That is perfectly consistent.

What I tried to point out in my last post that you called irrelevant is that I don't have to agree with every point raised against someone I feel has been scummy. In fact, I can actually disagree with points raised against someone I feel is scummy. The example with BB's name was a bit extreme, but the principle is the same.

[Goatrevolt]

The concept of lynching for information is such that even if the lynched player is town, it is acceptable because we have learned much from him. In other words, if you are advocating a lynch for information, Panzer's alignment is not relevant because you feel that we learn a lot from him and thus it's worthwhile regardless of his alignment.

My question is then: What do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town? I want specifics. Is lynching a town Panzer going to help us find scum in any way? Why, how, and who?

Note that: "there is a chance he is scum" is not a valid reply to the above, because lynching for information implies alignment is not a relevant consideration.

Personally, I feel that lynching for information is a BS justification people use to back up a lynch they are not confident in. "Well, he has been kind of scummy, but the good thing is, even if he's town we learn a lot here." Trying to justify how a lynch is fine even if it fails does not bestow confidence.

[Goatrevolt]

You're awfully adamant that Panzer is town, and you're trying to construct it as if lynching him is entirely a bad idea because he might be town, ascribing that apparently everybody wants to lynch him for information. The information case is basically a selling point that makes him more attractive than a Beyond Birthday vote, because if he's scum, it certainly implicates others to help find more scum. I don't know who we would follow up on for BB being scum.

I think you're confusing "adamant about Panzer being town" with "not wanting to lynch him today because I think there are better targets." He's 3rd/4th on my scum list, hardly "town" but also not really someone I want to see dead yet.

While I have a couple of suspects I would follow up on if BB is scum, I think you're missing the point. If Panzer is scum, it implicates others as scum. If Beyond Birthday is scum it doesn't necessarily implicate others as scum. Fair enough. However, how does that affect the actual likelihood of them being scum, and how is that relevant to who we choose to lynch? Panzer as scum being a good tool to catch other scum doesn't actually affect whether or not Panzer is scum. BB as scum not really helping us catch other scum doesn't actually make it worse to lynch scum. That's why "what happens if he is scum" is irrelevant to whether or not he actually is scum and should have no bearing on deciding upon a lynch.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, what's the point of generating information? Answer: to catch scum. We generate information because we want to catch and lynch scum. So you saying that a Panzer-town lynch gives us more information than a scum-birthday lynch is irrelevant, because by lynching Birthday-scum we've completed the objective that the information from a town-Panzer lynch is trying to accomplish. And that objective is the eradication of scum.

Every lynch gives information. We should be lynching people who we think are scum, not people who's information might help us on the way towards catching scum. It's like adding an additional and irrelevant step in the middle.

And no, I don't know their alignments. I understand how Panzer's lynch can generate useful information. I don't think that information is in any way, shape, or form enough to base a lynch off of.

One question for you: Why do you think Birthday is town?

[Goatrevolt]

Telling me who not to argue is anti-town, and is distracting me from my vote decision.

You've accused me of being distracting and a deterrence from scumhunting. Apparently nobody can accuse you of the same?

Where the HELL do you get the opinion I think Birthday is town? Quit trying to ascribe these opinions to me.

That's a pretty hypersensitive reaction. Townies don't react like that. They calmly explain themselves. .

Anyway, I'm basing that on the exact same logic you use to say that I think Panzer is town. You're softly defensive of Birthday. Despite saying that you think he's been scummy, you've avoided voting for him at any point, and your discussion is entirely centered around Panzer/Mykonian/myself. Whenever I've suggested that we lynch Birthday, and that voting for information is dumb, you've turned it around on me by accusing me of defending Panzer or of "knowing alignments." You've avoided taking a stance on Birthday at all costs.

Based on your unwillingness to lynch him, your avoidance of him, and your "soft defense" I can only assume you think he's town, using entirely your own logic. I mean, you've said you think he's scummy a couple of times, but your actions do not support this. You wouldn't happen to "know he's town" would you?

[Goatrevolt]

Also, yet again, you are assuming Birthday is confirmed scum and Panzer is confirmed town and that we have a clear choice between lynching scum and lynching town. This is where the scum-mindset is asserting itself, you somehow think it's a clear decision between the two. You constantly try to back your case up by eliminating the argument that "Panzer could be scum." I suspect that's because you already know Panzer's alignment.

I don't assume this at all. You're misrepresenting me and assuming stuff that is simply not true. You have a clear issue reading my posts and understanding them. That much is obvious. Nobody else has any issue reading my posts and understanding what I'm trying to say.

Right now I don't think you're scum or that you're a viable lynch choice for today. I do think you are distracting from deciding lynches, and you keep nitpicking at me for things that are simply untrue or based on misrepresentations of my posting. You are, however, avoiding taking a stance on Birthday at all costs. You constantly keep your vote on targets that nobody else is voting, and keep manipulating the discussion around to my stance on Panzer, or Mykonian.

You need to step up and give a clear stance on Birthday. You say you are suspicious of him, but all your actions suggest you think he's town. What gives?

[Goatrevolt]

You avoided my question. What is your stance on Birthday?

[Goatrevolt]

I looked into the meta of BB and Zilla somewhat last night. I don't feel I learned a whole lot. BB's play in this game is different than his play in both town games he's had (except the common factor: Slicing of wrists), but without a scum game to compare to, I don't see it as all that conclusive. The only game I looked through of Zilla's was a game where she was scum. She was much more passive and less confrontational in that game than she has been here. I should also look through a town game of hers and see if I can get any kind of useful picture.

At any rate, I don't think meta arguments are strong on their own. They are more useful for bolstering a case or weakening a case rather than serving as the actual basis to a case. People change their meta, and how someone plays in this game should be most important. Neither meta has really affected my view of either player involved.

BB: A few times throughout the thread you mentioned that we should be suspicious of players jumping aboard the Panzer wagon with weak reasoning. Were you implying that we aught to be suspicious of you?

I'm reneging on my earlier assessment of Zilla-town. She's back in the 50/50 mix for me. While I think her aggressiveness suggests she is pro-town, her stances have been questionable. I'm hesitant to just give her a pass based on aggressiveness and the appearance of scumhunting alone. Case in point: She attacks me entirely because I opposed her "give me a summary" stance. While I disagree with that vote, it's not that scummy by itself. However, she tries to flower it up by providing other weak reasoning. She was trying to stretch her vote into more than it actually was. When I shoot down that other reasoning, she merely moves on to other points, basically dismissing her poor reasoning and creating a deflection. She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer. I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again. That's deflection. Rather than debate a point she knew was wrong, she merely threw suspicion on me for other reasons and dismissed it. I feel she has led a similar crusade against Mykonian (making her case seem more than it actually is, rather than give the honest reasons she's voting him).

Then there is her continued avoidance of giving a stance on BB. 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. If you look through her recent posting, you will see her discuss anything and everything but BB. I called her out on not taking a stance, and her post last night ignored my question (which I asked in both posts).

Frankly, I feel she has created a lot of confusion and has "muddied the waters" since joining the game. She has shown she's not stupid, yet she consistently misrepresents or doesn't grasp the simple concepts my posts are discussing. Case in point: Me saying we should lynch for scum not lynch for information, using the example of Panzer if he is town. "Zilla: Goat doesn't want information. Goat knows Panzer is town." Both are gross misrepresentations and I'm having a harder and harder time seeing her legitimately not understand those posts as opposed to deliberately misrepresenting them. Then there is the hypocrisy inherent in "it's scummy when Goat is 'hypersensitive' or 'aggressively defensive'" yet Zilla responded in exactly the same fashion when I nailed her with her own logic.

I feel like I'm Christian Bale here, and Zilla is a Director of Photography checking the lights while I'm trying to do a scene. It's distracting. Constantly forcing me to defend myself over misrepresentations of my stances is both annoying and distracting, and it's certainly not helping us catch scum or decide on a lynch.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not going toe to toe with you again. The way you pick apart at my posts is frustrating, and is impossible to argue against. I literally could go through this thread, pick a random post, and pick it apart like you do with mine. It's not proving anything, you're just nitpicking at context-less words. I did read your post, however, and 3 points come to mind.

1. You saying "the argument didn't exist" in regards to you accusing me of defending Panzer by defending mykonian. That's a lie. You assert it in 421, I defend immediately against it in post 424 and your response in 429 does exactly what I'm accusing you of. You ignore the actual argument itself. You never go back to the point you raised in 421 that I answered in 424. Rather, you attack me for a "fire and brimstone" response and accuse me of not answering a different question (a question I had already answered). That is the deflection and dismissal I'm talking about. You make a ridiculous accusation that you do not back up. I defend against it. You ignore my actual defense, and twist it around so that I'm somehow scummy. That's not scumhunting at all. That's trying to pin me as scummy.

2. Arguing about there being unanswered questions I haven't answered is wrong. Can anyone else say this is true? I've answered every question Zilla has presented to me. If there are any that have been missed, it's because it's somewhere in the midst of a "smear goat" post that we both have already agreed not to continue. If Zilla actually thought I was avoiding questions, she would have harrassed me about it. This is just baseless suspicion, and furthermore this is deflection and dismissal of my arguments. I argue: You don't have a definitive stance on BB. She says: You haven't answered questions of mine! Deflection.

3. Your stance on BB. No, I was not ironic. No your stance on Birthday was not clear. This is getting ridiculous. You asked me for a stance on Panzer, despite me giving you that stance a while back. Ok, fine, maybe you forgot it. So I linked to the the post with my Panzer stance immediately after you asked the question. Then you attacked me 4 different times for not giving a stance on Panzer, despite me linking to a post with my stance on Panzer. Finally you gave this ultimatum "give your stance on Panzer, and you can't link." So I essentially just restated what I had typed in that post, which was my current stance. Compare how Zilla acted in that above scenario with how she acted here.

I ask for her stance on Birthday. She ignores that question repeatedly. Her response when finally forced to give an opinion: "I thought it was obvious from [link]." What hypocrisy. She railed on me for not providing my stance on Panzer despite me linking to my current stance. Then she doesn't answer my question asking for her stance, and she responds by saying it should have been obvious and gives a link. What the fuck. The hypocrisy here is off the freaking charts.

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

Now, as for your actual "stance" on Birthday. You call it obvious, and you link to a post. That post is not a stance. You attack Birthday, you do not take a stand on him. Furthermore, your final paragraph is basically "I thought Goat was wrong because I didn't actual read the points he was making, but now Birthday says he's right, so when I go back and look I see what Goat was saying." Backtracking and bullshit.

So basically, in that post we have you going through Birthday agreeing with my case on him and saying "I didn't agree with this, but since you agree I was wrong. This is scummy." over and over again. You don't reach a conclusion. You don't say whether or not you actually think Birthday is scum. That's not a stance. Your play from that point out goes to great care to ignore Birthday. It involves attacks on me, mykonian, discussion on pairing players, discussion on lynching for information. You don't address Birthday again.

So how about an answer. What is your stance on Birthday? You can continue to skirt around it or you can give a definitive answer. Tell me point blank what "75%" means? 75% likely chance he is to be scum? If so, why aren't you voting him? That's a higher percentage than you have attributed to anyone else. Your "it's not deadline so I'm voting Goat" angle rings insincere. You've avoided him, and you got pissed off when GIEFF told you that I wasn't getting lynched today. That suggests that you are entertaining the idea of lynching me. Hell, your vote is on me. Why aren't you voting who you actually think is most likely to be scum here?

Furthermore, you have spent quite a deal of time making it clear you value connections among players. If Birthday is 75%, and if I'm less likely to be scum if Birthday is scum (who is 75%) then according to the Zilla scale, I'm less likely to be scum. Point blank. Why the F asterisk C K are you voting for me. That doesn't make any sense. You are voting for someone nobody else supports a lynch on, who you consider less likely to be scum than BB, and whose chance of being scum goes down if Birthday is scum. That doesn't make any sense.

FoS Zilla

[Goatrevolt]

On this moment, I feel BB is mostly a lurker. Not really lynch worthy, maybe just someone to lynch in case of a very short deadline (that we don't have yet, do we?).

What do you think about the reasons everyone else is voting him? Have you even read the case presented against him and his response to that case?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm trying to establish if there is any pro-town mindset whatsoever for the stance Zilla has taken on BB. She says he's scum, or at 75%, but has ignored him entirely. Instead she has pushed me, who, according to her own logic is less likely to be scum if BB is scum. I want to note this:

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.

compared with:

First, in strict terms of scumminess, BB is hovering around 75% for me

Compared with her posts that GIEFF point out above, where she ignores BB and focuses entirely on me, or occasionally Mykonian. She has never voted for BB. She is attacking me, who is the biggest proponent of the case on BB, and she has practically ignored him with every post since the one she had to backtrack on.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm fairly conflicted right now.

I think BB is scummy for reasons I have elaborated on. I still think there is a good chance he is scum.

However, I also think he makes a valid point against Zilla. I reread all of Dejkha's posts and then the entire thread from Zilla's replacement onward. I kept an objective as an outlook as I could to try to keep my constant frustration with Zilla from clouding my judgment.

On the town side, there are points where Zilla seems genuine in her convictions, and she appears to be scumhunting and I will admit it seems legitimate.

On the scummy side, there are other times where she is obviously lying, or exaggerating points, and she is very dishonest about that. One example is her initial suspicion on me, an example I have used before. She voted me for not providing her with a summary. Nobody bought it. She literally just picked a couple of random reasons out of a hat to add to her suspicion to make it seem more legitimate. Zilla looks at a vote count. Oh, he's the only one voting MacavityLock, toss that in the Goat-is-scummy brew. Oh, he is aggressive in how he defends himself, toss that in the Goat-is-scummy brew. I think this is very scummy. I find trying to stretch a case into more than it actually is to be highly indicative of scum. Townies vote because they think someone is scum. They present the reasons they believe that, and use that to back up their vote. Scum, on the other hand, are worried about not having good enough reasons to vote for someone. They want to make their votes seem good, so they will frequently exaggerate points or bring up extra irrelevant points to make their case seem more than it is.

There are also times where she has contradicted herself or used very inconsistent reasoning. One such is repeatedly arguing that we were dumb for getting caught up in the SK discussion, and then using SK discussion as a point of suspicion on Mykonian.

Another is her statement that I was defending Panzer by nature of not being suspicious of Mykonian, who was defending Panzer. She obviously did not believe this to be true, as she did not follow up on it when I defended against it, has deflected from it whenever I have brought up the idea again, and did not consistently apply this reasoning to anyone else who also fit this description or any other similar circumstance in this game.

Another point is her inconsistency regarding who she believes to be scum, and who she actually is pursuing as scum. Her ranking of % likely to be scum is not at all consistent with who she has pursued as scum in the thread.

Then there is her hypocritical and shady behavior. One huge hypocrisy I have noticed is that she accuses me of being scum because of how I defend against her cases (aggressively, not calmly). Zilla defends herself in exactly this same fashion. Another hypocrisy is generating large amounts of suspicion on me for answering her question in the form of a link instead of direct text. When I questioned her on BB, she first ignored it, then said I could have gleaned that information from reading back, and then answered my question with a link. Really? If she is willing to answer: "What is your stance on BB" with a link, then there is no reason she can be suspicious of me answering: "What is your current stance on Panzer" with a link.

Something I consider shady is her hasty dismissal of the case on BB. Before even knowing what my case was about, she repeatedly asserted that it was weak. How would she know it was weak if she didn't know what it was about? I gave 3 points against BB. She said those 3 points were weak. Note she never asked me to elaborate on those points, she merely said they were weak. That is exactly the reason I gave sparse points in my initial attack on BB. I wanted to see how others reacted. Zilla reacted by dismissing the case without knowing what it was. Originally I passed this off as her saying my case is weak as a consequence of being suspicious of me. Now, I'm not so sure. Even if I'm suspicious of someone, I don't dismiss their case without actually seeing whether or not they have a point.

In terms of shady behavior, there is her pursuit of me as scum, despite me being less likely to be scum if BB is scum, and despite BB being a huge suspect of hers, whom she has ignored. She attempts to argue my "inconsistent" stance regarding Panzer, but in reality I have been entirely consistent. Panzer is not my top suspect, and I have not been treating him as such. BB is, and I have been pushing for his lynch for a while now. Whereas Zilla has been doing all she can to avoid BB, someone she wishes to assert that she is "very suspicious of." In fact, look back at Post 387. This is the post where she realizes her defense of BB does not fit with his own defense. Notice how within the very post she realizes her defense does not line up with BB, she attacks me based on my stance on Panzer. It was an odd attack, considering I had given her that stance fairly recently (and even linked to it in my next post). She then continued to attack me over giving her a link rather than restating my opinion, a clearly minor and irrelevant point of suspicion, which had the added benefit of transitioning from discussion of BB to discussion of me.

Although this is not something I can prove, I'd argue her inability to properly read my posts is scummy. She pulls excerpts out of context and argues against those excerpts, not the actual entirety of my point. That's the definition of a strawman. Example: I'm arguing against lynching for information, and my example scenario is if Panzer is town. That is an example scenario to prove a point. She pulls out my statement that Panzer is town, treats it as though it's my actual belief, and then attacks it. Strawman. Furthermore, why is she even going to great lengths to argue against my idea that lynching for information is worse than lynching for scum, when she herself admits she is not lynching for information.

Two possible hypothesis regarding her interaction with BB: First->She is scum and BB is town. She doesn't want to lynch him because BB coming up town makes her "more likely to be scum" based on the manner in which she defended him. Second->BB is a scumbuddy, and while asserting her suspicion of him, she has avoided him in hopes of generating a different lynch.

I'm having a hard time seeing how she justifies her position from a town standpoint, although I'm very interested in seeing her try.

I think I just convinced myself that Zilla is scum. I'll give her a chance to address my accusations in this post (and a couple of previous posts) first, though, before deciding whether or not I want to vote for her. Keep in mind, I'm not in the mood for BS. If you rip my post to shreds by pulling every sentence away from the paragraph it's in context with, I'll take that as an admission that you don't have a legitimate defense. If you accuse me of misrepresenting something where it is quite obvious I am not misrepresenting, I'll take that as an admission you don't have a legitimate defense.

[Goatrevolt]

Fucking hell, I am SO TIRED OF BEING MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.

Hypersensitive reaction. Scummy by your own logic.

Now, to address Goat's posts without quoting them because apparently that breaks their context, though it seriously doesn't.

Quoting doesn't break context. Pulling out individual phrases outside of their intended context does, creating strawmen. I will give a prime example:

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand.

This is crucial. You don't fully understand, and this is why your case is weak.

You pulled this grossly out of context. The context is me saying that I'm not sure which of 2 possibilities BB falls into, but it is definitely one of those two possibilities. I then go on to address both possibilities. BB admitted that his mindset fit one of the two possibilities. You pulled out the first sentence "I don't fully understand" and used it to imply that I lacked understanding in how I attacked BB. That is a strawman, and a misrepresentation. Don't believe me? Here is the original quote she so eloquently butchered:

I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.

2. You voted Panzer because of GIEFF's reasons for thinking Panzer was scum.

I'm guessing number 2 was your reason here, but I'll address either possibility.

We go from Zilla's butchering: "You don't understand the BB situation" to the actual context: "I don't understand which of these two mindsets you had at the time, and will address either possibility." The only person who didn't understand the BB situation was you, as it obvious. You tried to defend him without any understanding of the situation, which is highly scummy all on it's own. The implication is obvious here. You knew his alignment, and defended him because you knew he was town and wanted to smear me, not because you had an understanding of the situation and thought the actual situation made him likely to be town.

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

Deflection. I never called you a tunneler, nor did I imply that tunneling is scummy in any way. I said that you threw on additional meaningless reasons to suspect me to beef up your case and make it seem more than it actually was, which is scummy. Nice deflection, though.

On the SK discussion, you missed this post. It was stupid when I didn't have a handle on the game and the situation, and now it's not so much about what was being said but who said it. I'm suspicious of those people who advocate an SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one, and that includes myk and panzer.

I didn't miss that post. In fact, I think that post is scummy as hell. It's the exact same tone you took when you realized that you screwed up and stepped out too far in your defense of BB. It's that "shit, I screwed up now I have to sneak a backtrack in here" tone. Note comments you use like "I may have changed my mind" and "perhaps it's just reading it all in one sitting" and "the argument has aged well." That's just flowery language to cover up the bullshit you used as fertilizer (this metaphor is a stretch...). You may have changed your mind? You either did or did not change your mind. You went on about how the SK discussion was stupid, but then you realized you needed more points against Mykonian to make your case on seem seem more legitimate, so you reneged on that assessment. Scummy. Furthermore, you need to show where Mykonian has "advocated a SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one." I don't recall him doing that at all.

Both you and GIEFF have misunderstood my intent on "being suspicious of nobody defending panzer." I mean you are suspicious THAT nobody is defending panzer, but then you fill that role by defending him. I've seen scum do this countless times. "Oh hay guize this wagun luks to EZ, lol! Thay must not B scum !" Turns out both the person being pushed and the person who said the wagon looked too easy were scum.

Understood. Why didn't you address this then, when I argued against it? You left this to hang for many posts. Rather than say "you're misunderstanding my point" and clarifying it, you pulled the "fire and brimstone" argument.

As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been. Perhaps if you take the integral of my suspicion over time, you might say I'm not voting for the person with the most area under their curve, but I've always voted for the top suspect on my list. Mykonian is still my second suspect. Panzer and Birthday are third but in different facets; Panzer is more "group suspicious" and Birthday is more "single suspicious."

This is crap. For reference, here is the post, post 387. As is obvious by reading that post, this occurs AFTER Birthday admits his scumminess and votes you. Since that point on, Birthday has not changed his stance at all. This is important. You list Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and me at 20%. A few days later, you list Birthday at 75% when forced to give a stance on him.

Here's why this is scummy. If Birthday did not change his stance at all, it stands to reason that your stance on him likewise did not alter much (Note: you agree later in this post). You never questioned him, addressed him or made any post suggesting a change in heart regarding him. You listed him at 75%, and it stands to reason he was similarly 75% at the time you made the post I linked above (or at least close). So, that means that Birthday is at or around 75%, Mykonian is 50%, Panzer is 40%, and I am 20%

at the time of that post

. From reading your posts, it's clear Birthday was your top suspect based on the percentages, and you did not vote him or address him. I will also note that I was at 20%, a percentage more townie than the average player (likely between 25%-33%). Your suspicion of me rose from 20% to over 75% and much of that suspicion was generated or based on me providing a link describing my opinion rather than directly typing it out. Let's go ahead and look at your original response to the post I linked to:

Okay, now I can at least see a bit of what you are thinking. I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're scum right now either.

unvote: goatrevolt

So, by linking to the very post you unvoted me over, your suspicion of me began to rise enough to go from 20% to over 75%? Haha, no.

On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.

Deflection, again. I said that you were suspicious because of the hypocrisy. You have defended yourself exactly the same way I have, by "overreacting." Note my very first line of this post. You call me scummy for being hypersensitive and aggressive in my defense. You are guilty of the exact same thing. I called you out on the hypocrisy, and here we see you utilize deflection to try to avoid that point.

On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material.

My arguments on Panzer were still valid. Nothing had changed between that post and my current opinion. In fact, the text I provided you was almost a carbon copy of what I said in that earlier post, yet you did not bat an eye. So why didn't you accept me linking to that almost exact same explanation as valid? There is no logical reasoning here, you are arguing a completely nonsensical point. To prove my point, I will quote both sections, and you tell me where the difference is:

In essence, I think Panzer has played in a scummy fashion. The logic adds up to him being scum: the inconsistencies, the inability to explain his behavior, etc.. My gut is saying no, though, which is part of the reason I have hesitated on the wagon. Despite his failings in explaining himself throughout the thread, I've felt some of his plays have seemed genuine. The logic suggests he is scum, but I hesitate on the gut aspect, and in addition I wasn't comfortable ending the day with a lot of open ends.

Compare that to:

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel).

Those are almost identical. You repeatedly stated I could not link to post 295 because it was not a current opinion. I gave my "current opinion" finally, and it was pretty much exactly the same as what I said in 295. When I gave that "new" opinion your response was "Finally, Goat answers the question." To me, this demonstrates how obvious it was that you didn't even bother to read 295 when I linked to it. You misreped me by arguing against 240, not 295 once, and then when I gave the same description later, you accepted it. I think if you had actually read 295, you would have noticed the glaring similarities and commented on it. You didn't do this. It stands to reason you were just throwing suspicion on me for no good reason. Scummy.

Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds. Let us begin:

namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then

I also gave a stance in that post on Panzer. The same stance that I "wrote out for you" later on. Furthermore, my vote had switched from MacavityLock to Beyond_Birthday. That does not affect my opinion on Panzer.

Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post

Thank you so much for saying this. You just proved my earlier point. You know, the point where I say your opinion didn't change on Birthday, and you put him at 75%, so you should have been voting him, or at least attacking him in some fashion? You just proved me correct right here. Good game, scum.

I will state this again and make it clear. Zilla says nothing of note changed regarding Birthday. She listed Birthday at 75%. Since nothing of note changed, that means Birthday was also at 75% at the time she posted "Mykonian 50%, Panzer 40%, Goat 20%." She wasn't voting for her top scum suspect. She wasn't even mentioning him at all. Scum caught.

and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

Your vote changed from Mykonian to me. And the situation at large had remained mostly the same is just more proof to my above point. Thanks for making my case easier.

On "hasty dismissal," again, your "case" was three one-off lines. I'll admit I'd hardly read anything at that point, but whenever somebody switches their vote from somebody who hadn't defended themselves for somebody else who hadn't posted in a while and their listed reasons are "lack of scumhunting, suspicious disengage from Panzer, and wishy-washy stances," of course I'm going to be critical. That is a weak case, no matter what. There's no way that those reasons are enough to lynch anybody, and there seemed to be no outstanding catalyst for a changed vote other than the MacavityLock wagon was stuck in a rut.

Critical, sure. However, if you are critical of a case, yet you don't understand the details behind it, what do you do? Do you dismiss the case as being weak without understanding it at all? Shenanigans. You seek to understand it.

You saying it's a weak case doesn't make it a weak case. Me using three one-liners doesn't mean my case is weak, and you know it. You called it out as a weak case likely because you knew Birthday was town, and wanted to smear me.

Also, you say you wanted to "test reactions," which is a common scum justification for just about anything they do to try to get a wagon moving, especially if what they did was scummy to begin with. Note; this has been done multiple times in this game, by many people.

Strawman. Your argument is that it's scummy for me to give three 1-line reasons for voting someone. Your original vote on me was a single 1-line reason. Hypocrisy. My vote on BB was not scummy. I gave my reasons, I did not fill in the blanks. There is a reason I did that. It's because I gave a chance for BB to fill in the blanks himself, which gives us a great indication of his mindset. I gave the chance for other townies to fill in the blanks, which gives an indication of their mindset. You certainly gave us a good reaction here. You dismissed the case without knowing what comprised it.

On "inability to read posts," the same could be said of you, except that you're actively contorting mine to fit your wild arguments. You argue that I pull quotes out of context; what would be more clear "in context"? There's nothing missing from them that would be further explained by not addressing the points as they come up. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem because so much of those "out of context" things are because I try to point out exactly where your inaccuracy causes your entire case to fall apart. If you were talking about plants and how they are horrible because they eat kittens, and you make a detailed post about how plants eat kittens and what happens to the kitten populations, I'm going to stop you as soon as you say plants eat kittens. There's nothing about that statement that needs to be "in context" to be fully understood, and it is wrong.

I gave an example of this above. The "I don't fully understand" point, where you spin it around to mean that I don't have a grasp on the situation, when my actual and obvious meaning was that I don't know which of two possibilities is correct, so I addressed both.

Using your plants with kittens example here is what I mean: I would say something like the following. "If plants could eat kittens, then the kitten population would be lower." You then say "Wow, Goat thinks plants can eat kittens. He must have knowledge of a kitten eating plant and so he's scum." Think I'm lying? Let's look at a real example:

In Post 480 I discuss the concept of lynching for information. I say that lynching for information as a concept suggests that it is acceptable to lynch a town player because of the information generated. I then go on to ask, "what do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town." I am entirely addressing the concept of lynching for information. I want to know why lynching for information is a good idea, and I'm using the example scenario of Panzer being town.

You make a response in Post 482. In your response, you say that I am awfully adamant that Panzer is town. That is a misrepresentation and a strawman argument. You took my

example scenario

, ripped it out of context to suggest it was my actual opinion, and then argued against that opinion you ripped out. That is the definition of a strawman.

Also, "that's the definition of strawman"? Unlike you, I answer every single part of those posts. I've only cut standalone statements that are not part of any argument. When you engage in your side of a quote war against me, you constantly incorrectly paraphrase me to destroy that actual intent of the argument.

I've already shown this to not be true, based on my two above examples ("I don't fully understand", Panzer is town). You cut parts out of my posts and argue against them, creating a strawman and smearing me. That is scummy. Also, nice unsupported deflection there at the end. We're discussing your play here, not mine. So much of your defense in this post is an attempt to deflect back to me. And naturally so, because you don't have a defense for your scummy actions.

On your example: "lynching for information." You commit that exact fallacy. I debated at length about the logic of lynching for information, and I debated why it is logical if panzer is town. You then CONSTRUCT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT by ignoring that, and instead attacking from the angle that panzer will be a mislynch while birthday will not

hahahaha. Funny, funny. I've gone through your posts and this is what I've found on the topic:

Guys, asking for what specific information a lynch will give beforehand is eating unripened fruit.

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

I personally think a town panzer doesn't clear anyone

Town Panzer would help us analyze whether his defenders were defending him because they thought he was town or because they knew he was town, rather than leaving it open to speculation on if his defenders are trying to defend a buddy. Revealing the specifics of who falls into which category is harmful and pointless at this point, and potentially destroys sources of information.

Debated at length? Your only reason given was my last quote there: "Town Panzer would help us..." That is a marginal and weak reason. That information can be determined right now, without Panzer actually being lynched. Basically, what you're saying is "who is defending Panzer without just cause?" We don't need a dead Panzer to analyze that.

I never said Panzer will be a mislynch and Birthday will not be. That is a direct lie based on your own strawmanning of my posts. I've shown already where you have done this. Point out exactly where I say Panzer is a mislynch, and Birthday is guaranteed scum, and I will show you the obvious strawman.

On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

Holy deflection and misrepresentation batman! I never said or implied that you were scummy for suspecting me. I said you were scummy because according to the Zilla percentage based analysis of who is scum, I was lower on the Zilla-scale than Birthday, yet you were not voting or attacking him whatsoever. Instead you were on me. This is a point I proved earlier in this post, using the evidence you so graciously gave me in your post. I said that I doubted you could back up your stance from a town standpoint, because I don't know how townie can back up ignoring their top suspect to pursue someone else.

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

Unvote, Vote Zilla

I encourage everyone to read this post carefully. Examine the links I provided. Take the time to understand the points I am making. Go back and verify for yourself. I've finally been able to nail Zilla on the contradictions, strawmen, hypocrisy, and deflection that she has been using this game (admittedly, others have been here first). It has made this game a living hell trying to argue with her, and I wrongly brushed it off as playstyle differences or her simply being unable to comprehend my posts. At this point, it has become quite clear that this is a result of her being scum. She is a fully capable player, and has no problem understanding posts.

[Goatrevolt]

Let me know if I should answer Zilla's post 537 and 538. I can answer her accusations easy enough, but I don't want to flood the thread with unnecessarily long posts.

I do have to answer this one part of post 539:

First off, Goat and Myk's refusal is way more "shut-out, go away" style than any of the others. They don't even want to talk to me.

This could be the funniest thing I have read in the thread. This is even funnier than Zilla simulposting her defense of BB with his acknowledgment of being scummy, and then having to fall back on an "oh shit" post. You know that "oh shit I overextended defending BB so I'll go ahead and toss suspicion on Goat for

the reasons I unvoted him!

" post.

My style is "shut-out, go away"? As evidenced by the post wars I've engaged with you? Hilarious.

Goatrevolts's super long post: I find the general point agrees with the thoughts I have had on Zilla since she started defending me (or about that time). I find it interesting that he believe that if Zilla is scum that I still could be. Personally, this seems flawed as a thought process, but I'm not really sure.

The reason I think you could still be scum is because she ignored you and was trying to deflect away from your wagon by pushing me (the driving force behind your wagon) as scum. She maintained that you were scum, but was unwilling to join your wagon and was trying to undermine it with her pressure on me. Her swap to me as scum was built from poor reasons (The link vs. text argument, strawman of my lynching for info example) and the resulting back and forth of her push on me pushed your case into the background.

I think you both being scum together is plausible, for those reasons. I think it is less likely, though, than her as scum and you as town. I think her dismissal of my case on you without knowing what it was would suggest you being town. It's ballsy scum play to dismiss a case on your scumbuddy without even bothering to examine the reasons behind it.

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.

Aye. This is the strawman/deflection tactic she continues to employ.

Okay, seriously, stop being a hypocrite. I already answered this, but now you're acting like I didn't, because you "invalidated" my answer to this by saying I was just "nitpicking."

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense. The strangest thing of all is that this is counter to the earlier dynamic between Goat, Panzer, and GIEFF. GIEFF pushes panzer, Goat defends panzer, and now GIEFF defends goat who had been defending panzer. GIEFF is also defending Goat MUCH MORE than Goat's soft-spoken defense of panzer.

Speaking of deflection. You ignore GIEFF's valid point. You instead employ deflection. You deflect to attacking him as a scum buddy of me, rather than address the point he is making. You got caught, so you shift attention.

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

Nice shift. This is so "transparently scummy," to borrow a term. Unable to defend your stance, you place a 6th vote on Birthday. You deflect from the attention on you to put attention on Birthday. You want us to avoid pressuring you so you try to change the topic and direct discussion to Birthday. Noteworthy is the accusation of Panzer. You are throwing him in for no reason whatsoever to shift attention again.

Also, I love your drastic stance shift. I'm not going anywhere so you're fine with leaving me till tomorrow? How does that compare with:

Second, you can check my meta, but I am almost always one of the first people on anyone's case. You shouldn't keep your vote off someone just because they aren't likely to be lynched. In fact, if anything, it only makes them a better target, since mafia are harder to lynch than town.

Here you respond to GIEFF saying your vote on me isn't accomplishing anything because I'm unlikely to get lynched. You respond by pushing for my lynch and give the reason that since I'm harder to get lynched I'm more likely to be scum.

Again, either you're defending him as fellow scum or he's sold you on why I voted for him in the first place.

You say I'm scum here.

I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

You say I'm your top suspect here.

"Persuit of me as scum depsite being less likely to be scum if BB is scum." Yes, I'll agree with that, but now you're arguing the opposite of what you argued when it was Panzer and mykonian instead of you and BB. If I had to give it up between you two being scum, I'd pick you right now.

You say if you had to pick between me and BB, you'd pick me as scum.

As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been.

You're voting for BB, but you just said I'm your top suspect. So what you're saying is you're fine letting your top suspect skate off until tomorrow, and instead you place the 6th vote on someone who's chance of being scum decreases if me, your top suspect, is scum? Funny how that works.

I'm not voting BB because he's not my TOP suspect, which is Goat, for reasons I have stated, and will state again

This quote speaks for itself.

Need I go on? Zilla is voting for BB as an act of desperation, because she is caught scum and is trying to deflect or force down a quick lynch to save her hide. These quotes I just quoted were all taken directly from her posts within 12 hours of her change to voting BB over me. I am her top suspect, as she has repeatedly asserted. She switches to voting for BB, who is less likely to be scum if I am scum, based on her own logic. And her reasoning is that I will still be around tomorrow.

There is no way a townie thinks like this. She thinks I am scum, but because I will still be around tomorrow, she switches to voting for someone who is

less likely to be scum if I am scum

. No way.

Goat-Zilla. Goat seems very protown to me, and Zilla seems to see all the small things. Zilla's tactic would be good, assuming perfect play. I don't know how perfect Goat is.

I am perfection incarnate.

On a more serious note, you mention "Zilla sees all the small things." What this really means is that she makes mountains out of molehills. She takes small things, rips them out of the context they go with, amplifies the newly constructed strawman as something scummy, and then attacks it.

Responding to prod. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what I can contribute here. I am doing my best to keep up with the thread, but I'm not seeing anything that grabs my attention. I think we're being crippled by having the entire game revolve around the same 3 or 4 arguments that only involve less than half of the town. Given the absence of any truly solid information, we're going to have to realize that these arguments are impossible to definitively wrap up in a way that leaves us a with a generally accepted conclusion. Different players will continue to have their own ideas, and at some point folks will need to settle for simply knowing that they've made their points as clearly as possible so that everybody else can weigh them fairly. We're spinning our wheels.

Nice non-committal post here amidst polarizing discussion. Did you even read the page you posted this on? People are changing their minds, votes are swapping around and there is plenty of juicy discussion here. I'm highly suspect of this recycled "we aren't getting anywhere" post during a very influential part of the game.

Also, I can claim, but if people think this lead is better, I suggest we follow it.

I'd guess this is obvious by now, but there is no need for you to claim right now.

[Goatrevolt]

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

I'll answer this, but I want to first turn this around and ask you a question: What constitutes a good case? You don't consider lying a good case. You don't consider contradictions a good case, or strawmen, or deflection. How do you catch scum? What makes up a good case?

Then I will ask you to look at post 554. Can you read that post and say that you think Zilla is acting like a townie? She placed the 6th vote on Birthday after spending post after post arguing about how she thought I was more likely to be scum than Birthday and that's why she was voting me and not him. She got mad at GIEFF, because he told her I wasn't going to get lynched today. The reason she got mad was because she told him that he was trying to direct her vote off of me, who she thought was scum. She argued how he was a scum buddy to me. Then, abruptly, and for no real reason, she switched to voting Beyond Birthday, and trying to direct attention to Panzer rather than answer the question GIEFF asked her. Nothing changed. There was no new information to change her mind. After arguing over and over again how I was scum, and after starting to suggest who scum buddies to me would be, she changed her vote to a player who had 5 votes on him already. This player is also someone based on her logic that would be LESS likely to be scum if I was scum, her current top target. That does not make sense. There is no townie justification for that action. Therefore, she is scum. It's as simple as that.

Her scum justification is obvious. GIEFF asked her a question she could not answer. She was getting pressured with questions she had no answer to. Rather than attempt and fail to answer those questions, she tried to deflect. She attempted to change the discussion to other people. Do you see any real logical reason for why she brought Panzer up when she voted for BB? If she was concerned about Panzer "lurking" she would have brought it up beforehand. The reason she brought it up there is because she wanted to deflect, and she tried to do so by changing the focus of the discussion to Birthday and Panzer.

To answer your question, I will say "it depends." The type of contradictions/misrepresentations/deflections/strawmen is what is important. I won't say any of those are guaranteed indicators of scum on their own, however, they do indicate scum based on the circumstances.

The contradiction aspect of Zilla is that she was not voting for who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was not even

attacking

who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was attacking me, and I was the one attacking Birthday, who was most likely to be scum at the time. The time period I speak of is Post 387. In that post, she lists me as 20% likely to be scum. You are at 50%, Panzer is at 40%. Birthday is at 75%. Later on in the thread, Zilla says that Birthday is at 75%, and she also says that her opinion on Birthday had not changed at all during the period between Post 387 and that post. What that means is Birthday was at 75%, you at 50%, Panzer 40%, me 20%. Her vote was on you, and then it swapped to me. She did not vote or attack Birthday, who was her top suspect. That is contradictory and scummy.

Why would town not be voting for their top suspect? The only reason I can think of is to avoid a quicklynch. However, Birthday was at either 1 or 2 votes at the time. There is no townie reason why her vote wasn't on BB. Consider the scum benefit: She wasn't voting Birthday because she wanted to direct attention to people who she wanted lynched or gone for her own scum-reasons. She did not want Birthday to get lynched. The reason is that he was arguing if he got lynched and was town, then Zilla is scum. Zilla doesn't want him dead, because it makes her more likely to be scum. So she avoided him, despite him being her top suspect.

Misrepresentations/Strawmen: On their own, these are not necessarily indications someone is scum. People can misrepresent posts on accident all the time. For example, I feel you have misrepresented GIEFF numerous times throughout this game, but I don't think you're scum. In the case of Zilla, though, it is obvious she is capable of understanding the situations she misrepresents. She misrepresented me by saying I knew Panzer was town. She pulled that out of a post where I gave an example situation. My example was "if Panzer is town, what do we learn?" She ripped that out of context and came to the conclusion that I knew Panzer was town. She is capable of understanding what I meant. She simply chose not to and instead tried to pin me as being scum based on this purposeful misrepresentation. This is the same type of argument you are using against GIEFF.

Deflection: Here is the reason this is scummy. Let's say I attack Zilla for X. She knows she does not have a valid explanation for X, so instead of defending against it, she attacks me instead. What this accomplishes is that it puts me on the defensive. I'm forced to defend myself, and it's possible that X, the original accusation gets ignored in the meantime. It's a scum tactic for avoiding suspicious things they've done but cannot explain. Zilla uses this tactic against GIEFF and myself many times in her recent posts. Read through them and see how instead of answering a point, how she will sometimes turn it around and attack the accuser instead. GIEFF nails her on a point. What does she do? She says she's already answered that point (where?), and then deflects to Birthday and Panzer. She does not have a valid answer to the question GIEFF presented to her, so her she tried to deflect.

We know: would scum be so obvious? If I'm scum, I would never use something that obvious, people are quite sensitive, and when their ideas are used wrong, they find out soon. Most "strawmen" I have seen were wrong reading, making it a little too strong, and then the person whose words were used reacts aggressively. I'm a bit scared of these kinds of arguments.

How obvious is this really? Look at how many times various points have gotten lost in the long quote-wars between her and myself. Her strawmen arguments have not been obvious, or else others would have been attacking them as well.

I'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

[Goatrevolt]

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'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

I meant the fact that you knew. You can always see that your feelings are posted the wrong way. That's why I would never use it if I am scum, it always comes out and someone is going to make a big show out of it, but with the problem that I'm also in it. To you it is obvious that something is going wrong.

You'd be surprised at how often this goes unchecked. As Zilla made an effort to note (in order to paint me as scummy), my style of "aggressively" defending myself against every point brought up against me is not the typical way people play. I do it because it's effective. I don't want to count my chickens before they are hatched, but as an aside: Zilla scoffed at my mention that I have caught scum based on how they have attacked me. She used this as a point against me when calling my scumhunting techniques poor. If Zilla is scum, I wish to note the irony.

It's also entirely likely Zilla was not aware how in over her head she was. Note how I had to piece together information from a variety of posts over a long period of time to point out her scumminess. None of this was obvious. None of this was big slips that would nail her on their own. Your argument here is basically "scum wouldn't act like scum because they would get caught." No, scum act like scum because they are scum. Can you give a specific example of something Zilla wouldn't do as scum because it was too obvious? You might argue that Zilla wouldn't say Birthday is her top suspect but not vote for him. I would shoot down that argument by saying that Zilla only implied Birthday was her top suspect pages and pages after the fact, after having me repeatedly question her on it, and that I had to piece together how that was inconsistent and scummy, using three separate Zilla posts. This wasn't an immediately obvious failure. That was a mistake that propagated itself over time and as a result of her being scum and being unable to keep her story straight. She wasn't voting Birthday because of scum motivations to vote for other people. That lie didn't catch up to her for another 4+ pages, when she made a mistake later.

To summarize. Give me a specific example of a single post or statement Zilla made that was blatantly scummy and something scum wouldn't do because it would cause them to get caught? There isn't one. None of Zilla's posts are scummy in isolation. You're trying to say Zilla wouldn't do obviously scummy things. I'm saying nothing she did was obviously scummy. Everything is pieced together over time based on the increasing realization that her actions cannot make sense from a town perspective.

[Goatrevolt]

Unofficial vote count has Zilla at 4 votes: Birthday, GIEFF, Goat, Militant

I had a post typed up, but I copy pasted it to a notepad file and accidentally copy pasted over that notepad file. Fun fun...here is the gist of the post:

If Zilla is scum, then I feel these players go up in scumminess:

Dourgrim:
Qwints:
Subgenius:

The rest of the game either does not shift in scumminess, or shifts more towards town.

I can further elaborate before the end of the day if deemed necessary (though I won't be elaborating on the townie/neutral shifts. I don't see how that would be pro-town).

[Goatrevolt]

In retrospect, I can see panzer as a scum buddy as well.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm shocked at the lack of support for the Zilla wagon. This is an open-shut case. Her actions do not fit a town mindset. Her vote on Birthday makes no sense based on her play (I made this abundantly clear in I believe it was post 544). Note how she did not even bother to defend against that, but instead went the route of deflection. Her scum team is comprised of the people attacking her presumably based on the fact that they are attacking her. However, she is unable to defend against those attacks. Fancy that. We must be three excellent scum, if we can present a case against Zilla that she cannot defend against and instead has chosen to simply ignore it and attack us instead.

Note how she makes definitive claims like "GIEFF is one of the most pro-town people in the game" and then changes her mind simply because he attacks her. Her explanation now? That she just lumped GIEFF in with Dourgrim and didn't even take the time to analyze him before calling him pro-town. Does that make any sense? Zilla, who has shown that she is willing to pull out the most minor aspects of posts and make huge deals out of them is saying that she had GIEFF as her most pro-town player without even looking at his play? Give me a break. This is the same crap she pulled when she changed her mind on Birthday, and when she changed her mind from saying the SK discussion was stupid to that it was valid when she needed an additional reason to vote for Mykonian. I don't know how to make it more obvious that Zilla is scum who cannot keep her story straight. Nothing she says makes sense. She is flailing because she has been caught, and I can't believe we are not finishing the job.

Mykonian: You are looking too hard to find possible ways Zilla could be town, rather than acknowledge the more likely situation that Zilla is scum. You seem to want guarantees and confirmed scum before committing to anything. That simply is not possible in the game of mafia. There is

always

a possibility someone is town. That is the nature of the game. It's possible Zilla, as town, was not voting for or even attacking her top suspect, defended BB without even bothering to know the case against him, was misleading about GIEFF being among her top townies, has outstanding points she can't defend against so she deflects, and votes Birthday despite repeatedly arguing over and over again that I was her top target, not Birthday. It's possible she makes this continued series of scummy plays as town. Is that likely, though? Not at all.

Qwints: The argument against Zilla has nothing to do with her being abrasive. If that is your opinion on it, then you are not paying attention.

Springlullaby: Please stop lurking.

Ting: You noted my post regarding subgenius and suggesting your agreement with it. Then you did not provide your own opinion on the same topic that I attacked subgenius over. What is your take on Zilla?

[Goatrevolt]

"Vote him!"
"No, I'm voting you!"
"<arguments> Vote him or you're scum."
"<counter-arguments> No, I'm voting you, I think you're scum."

-repeat-

"Vote him or you're scum!"
"You know, it will at least give information on you, and I do suspect him, so fine, vote birthday."
"OMG SCUM."

This is another misrepresentation. I have never once told you to vote Birthday. I explained how your lack of a vote on Birthday was suspicious because at the time (this was around like post 380) he was your top suspect according to the logic you gave us. You didn't act accordingly. However, when you DID vote Birthday (post 5xx), you made it exceedingly clear that I was your top suspect in numerous posts preceding to the vote on Birthday. That is suspicious. Again you are not voting your top suspect, and you were voting for someone who was close to a lynch.

I never once told you vote Birthday or you are scum. However, let's even go so far as to assume I had done so for the sake of utter completeness. That means you were voting Birthday at my request, the request of the person you most believed to be scum, and you were doing so under the idea that you didn't want to get called scum. That's about as scummy as it gets.

In other words, if we are to believe the above exchange, you voted Birthday, despite me being your top suspect:

1. At the behest of me and/or GIEFF, two players you were pairing repeatedly as scum.
2. Because you didn't want to get called "scum" by us.
3. Despite Birthday going down in scum likelihood if I'm scum.

This is a horrible scummy explanation fueled by yet another misrepresentation. Seriously, how can people read this and not want to lynch Zilla?

I don't like how they've

changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him

. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying

I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

Bolded sections are contradictory. The first bolded section says that we changed our mind about Birthday

because

you voted him. The second bolded section says that we voted you

because

we changed our mind about Birthday. You're arguing two separate and contradictory reasons to try to call us scum.

I also like how you say "Opinions can't change" as a sarcastic jab at us suspecting your vote change to Birthday. However, the irony is your entire paragraph above is trying to call us scummy because we changed our opinion.

I will give you the difference, though. You changed your opinion from voting me (your top suspect; making birthday less likely to be scum) to voting Birthday with no reasoning. You spent tons of words explaining how I was your number 1 suspect over and over again, and then you went on and changed your vote to Birthday, who was the closest to getting lynched, with no underlying reasoning. The only reasoning you've even begun to provide is that "Birthday's alignment will help your read of me." However, the contrary is also true: "My alignment will help your read of Birthday." In essence, you had no reason to change your vote to him. You did so either because you wanted to appease us and get us off your back, or because you wanted to quickly generate a lynch on Birthday since you saw things shifting in your direction, or you wanted to deflect from the valid (and still unanswered) question GIEFF nailed you with. Maybe a combination of all of the above.

On the other hand, we changed our opinion based on actual evidence in the thread. There were reasons behind it. Our assessment of your play, followed by your scummy defense of those points led to the vote for me. I can't speak for GIEFF, but I assume it was that + your scummy vote on Birthday that did it for him. Our vote was based on evidence. Your vote was based on 1 flimsy reason that is faulty and a lot of possible scum motivations.

Goat, mostly I'm hiding behind the too scummy falacy because I don't like how the bandwagon of Zilla grows. It simply seems too easy.

Too easy? Zilla is stuck at 4 votes. Both qwints and you have weighed in and are not open to the wagon. A couple of other players have commented since the Zilla thing started firing up (ting/subgenius/still waiting on Dour) but haven't committed at all.

I'm struggling to get people to commit to a wagon on obvious scum. This is not too easy.

[Goatrevolt]

Qwints, what specifically about the case on her is weak? From reading your posts I get the general idea that you are of the opinion that Zilla being aggressive somehow trumps any amount of scummy actions she can take. Do you think scum are somehow unable to play aggressively? Furthermore, myself and GIEFF are both aggressive players and are two of the major factors pushing the "Scum-driven" wagon on Zilla. How does that fit with your aggressiveness = pro-town idea?

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, how is my lack of input disconcerting when I said I was V/LA?

I'm guessing you are off V/LA at this point. What is your take on present discussion?

It looks like it'll be Monday before I can post in any depth, but here are things to remind myself of for tomorrow's post:

No post?

The subject of the attack is not abrasiveness.
The motivation for attacking is that she is abrasive.

If my motivation for attacking her was abrasiveness, I would have done it far earlier. She has not acted in an abrasive fashion to BB or Militant, and did not act that way towards GIEFF prior to his attack on her. I fail to see how this is at all a relevant point.

[Goatrevolt]

Did I see earlier in the thread that I'm being linked to Zilla now? Is this because I said above that I believed Zilla to probably be Town?

I'm guessing you were referring to my "player shift" post. It's unrelated to you saying you thought Zilla was town. I'm not even going to go into it at the moment, because that is contingent on Zilla being lynched and turning up scum. I'm fairly confident she will turn up scum, but getting her lynched has been difficult. Half the game has resorted to lurking or giving feeble Zilla-defenses in light of the recent push. People think the wagon on her is too easy, I'd have to respectfully disagree.

I think qwints is more likely to be scum if Zilla is scum. I think Zilla is far more likely to be scum than qwints is.

GIEFF, do you think the evidence points to qwints being more likely to be scum than Zilla? I'm skeptical of your vote change here, right after you confirmed your vote on Zilla. I think there are decent points against qwints (I don't agree with everything you said, but I'll see how he responds), but is a weaker vote on Birthday and a poor defense of Zilla scummier than the mounds of evidence against her? I can see townie justifications for how qwints has been playing, and I feel his posts have been at least consistent. I simply cannot see townie justifications for Zilla's actions.

[Goatrevolt]

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

What do you mean?

[Goatrevolt]

I can agree with that. What do you think about Zilla?

[Goatrevolt]

Why are you voting Birthday, then?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat's case on Zilla is pretty damn good IMHO, but I don't think we should discount BB (or even Panzer) entirely just yet. I'm going to try and make time to reread again today before voting, but just to be sure...

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.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF:

Why go at Dourgrim again? Do you think he's a valid lynch option for today?

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

[Goatrevolt]

Join the club, Dour. I haven't had much time for anything due to large amounts of schoolwork, but Dour, this is exactly what's going on with my case. I explain every time where they are wrong, but they ignore it. :/

Funny. You occasionally pick out one aspect of the case on you and try to refute it. You've ignored quite a bit of the case against you.

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

That's a lie. You have not once addressed my points about how your vote should have been on Birthday earlier. If we were using an illogical fallacy, you would be able to refute it. You haven't done so. You haven't even tried.

Again, I don't like how GIEFF and Goat jumped off of birthday because I jumped on. I'm seeing a false facade here.

I addressed this in an earlier post. One that you also ignored.

On Qwints: I basically agree with your summary. However, you don't give your stance on him at all. You summarize his play, but don't tell us how you personally feel about it, and whether or not you think he's scum or town.

On spring: I agree.

Birthday wasn't ever my "top suspect,"

You still haven't addressed any of my points regarding this.

-----

Regarding Dour/GIEFF. I think GIEFF has a point, but I don't think it's that big of a point. I don't really consider Dour much more likely to be scum because of it.

[Goatrevolt]

I don't want to policy lynch SL, or have her replaced. I think she's more likely to be town if Zilla is scum (early pressure on Dejkha would have to be busing in that case), which I think is likely. I just want her to catch up and start playing the game.

I think Zilla should claim. We have, what, 5 votes on her + GIEFF + mykonian's call for a claim.

All subsequent discussion has been just muddying the waters. GIEFF, if you think Zilla is scum, then why are you creating all this extra noise to distract from her lynch? Why aren't you voting for her?

Actually, your recent posts have been made with more of a conciliatory tone in regards to her. Do you no longer think she's scum? If so, what changed your mind? If not, why are you almost apologetic in your tone regarding her lynch?

--------

I'll respond to other posts later on.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, you want me to "nitpick" and "deflect" by answering your questions? Eh? I mean, pick a side here; either I point out how your arguments are invalid (apparently nitpicking or deflecting, depending on what day of the week it is) or I try to answer them without directly pointing out why your "information" is wrong (these are always, ALWAYS ignored). Either read my posts, or stop saying my responses are "deflection" and "nitpicking" when I point out why they are invalid.

No. Answering my accusation is not nitpicking or deflecting and I've never implied it to mean either of those. Deflecting is not answering the question and instead changing the course of discussion. That is something you are fond of doing. Nitpicking has never been a part of my case on you. I recall referencing it once to show the difference between two aspects of your play.

Furthermore, you rarely try to point out why my points against you are wrong. You tend to resort to deflection, or calling my statements a misrepresentation without any underlying reasoning.

So, what point about "how my vote should have been on Birthday earlier" are you talking about?

I've mentioned this so many times thus far. Here's one of the many places I reference it:

The contradiction aspect of Zilla is that she was not voting for who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was not even attacking who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was attacking me, and I was the one attacking Birthday, who was most likely to be scum at the time. The time period I speak of is Post 387. In that post, she lists me as 20% likely to be scum. You are at 50%, Panzer is at 40%. Birthday is at 75%. Later on in the thread, Zilla says that Birthday is at 75%, and she also says that her opinion on Birthday had not changed at all during the period between Post 387 and that post. What that means is Birthday was at 75%, you at 50%, Panzer 40%, me 20%. Her vote was on you, and then it swapped to me. She did not vote or attack Birthday, who was her top suspect. That is contradictory and scummy.

Also, where's this explanation of ditching Birthday? I see this erroneous quote that shows you missed the intent of the post..

I don't like how they've

changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him

. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying

I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

Bolded sections are contradictory. The first bolded section says that we changed our mind about Birthday

because

you voted him. The second bolded section says that we voted you

because

we changed our mind about Birthday. You're arguing two separate and contradictory reasons to try to call us scum.

Duh, they're contradictory. That was the point, I'm pointing out how your moves and reasons are contradictory. I vote Birthday because he's more likely to be lynched AND he is a valid suspect AND he gives information about you, and suddenly, Birthday's not the lynch anymore, and suddenly, all the suspicion you built up on Birthday is apparently vaporized because I voted for him, and somehow my vote on him is scummy because I'm trying to "appease" you.

My suspicion on Birthday wasn't vaporized because of your vote. I changed my mind prior to even reading that post. It was a nail in the coffin, though, as there was literally no townie rationale for you to change your vote like that. You just spent post after post arguing about how you thought I was scum, and that you were pissed that GIEFF was trying to push you from changing your vote off of me. Then you went around and changed your vote to Birthday. The reason you gave: because it would tell more about me. The opposite is also true. My lynch would tell more about Birthday. That simply isn't a valid reason.

I'm thinking by association here that Birthday is innocent, and Goat was initially trying to get him lynched, but he was afraid he'd be too accountable for the results. I don't know where GIEFF factors into this, considering he was very VERY softly involved in the Birthday push, but I'm reasonably certain that Goat's the most likely scum player given his constant skewing of facts.

Right, because that makes any sense. You're arguing that I was afraid of the accountability of lynching a townie, and that's why I backed off of Birthday. By that same standard, shouldn't I have backed off of you, or are you not a townie?

I would like a clear summary of your case on me, and yes, I'm going to "nitpick" it to point out the flaws. I don't think it's going to "convince" you otherwise, but I want to see how much of your case is still based on your skewed info. At the very least, it'll serve as a base to stop this "You didn't answer some vague argument that I'm not going to quote or link" business and ought to clear up a ton of misconceptions. In the off chance that you are town, it might help you at least realize how nebulous and unfounded some of these arguments are.

I have no issues with nitpicking. I have issues with misrepresentation and deflection. It may take me a while to write up the post, but I should have it by tonight.

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).

There's a huge difference between knowing someone is a townie, and thinking someone is a townie. Calling someone a townie because you think they are a townie isn't scummy. Calling someone a townie because you know this is the case is scummy.

Mykonian saying Zilla is a mislynch doesn't imply that he knows she is a townie. It could mean that, but it could also mean that he thinks she is a townie, and thus he thinks her lynch is a mislynch.

I don't like that Goat is now trying to get me back on the wagon.

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. As for a conciliatory tone:

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.

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.

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. It's clear your mind has changed.

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. Is it different when I argue that you're wasting your vote on Qwints?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Emotion is not a factor behind my vote. If it was, I would have voted her far earlier. She was actually my top townie directly after she attacked me the first time, despite my intense frustration in defending against it. My opinion slowly began to change throughout the thread. Occasionally, yes, because of a direct emotional response, but more so because of the points she was bringing up and the underhanded nature of her play. I think emotion actually kept me from voting her earlier, because I kept shrugging off my suspicion of her because I assumed I was just emotionally invested.

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?

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.

As for the two people who jumped on the wagon, one was Panzer, who had expressed both his willingness to lynch Zilla before and his preference in lynching someone who was not him. I don't think you can be surprised in any way by his jump on the wagon. The other was Dour, who admittedly, was a little fishy, in that he admitted that my case was solid, but didn't immediately commit, and only committed later when I noted that Panzer could be a Zilla scum-bud.

Overall, though, you are suspicious of the wagon buildup. I'm suspicious of the lack of wagon buildup. Since this has started, subgenius and ting have completed disappeared, despite having posted after our cases on Zilla but not taking a stance on them. Springlullaby has continued to promise to catch up but hasn't. Both mykonian and qwints are opposed. You hopped off the wagon. etc.

[Goatrevolt]

And as for connections. I have plenty of connections to draw if Zilla is scum. Every player in the game has interacted with her in some fashion, and I think there is a huge wealth of information in determining who is scum/town after this. While that is not a reason behind my desire to vote Zilla, that should also not be a reason to be against lynching her.

[Goatrevolt]

Busy weekend, busy with schoolwork for the next 2 days. 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.

Zilla: I noted that post in my own post 544. I mentioned that I was willing to answer it, but wasn't going to unless people wanted me to. Nobody said anything, so I assumed nobody wanted me to give a large response to it.

[Goatrevolt]

You call that an answer?

Zilla, do you even read my posts? No, of course it wasn't an answer. That's why I said I was willing to answer it if necessary.

Look at the very first line of post 554. Then think for a second.

[Goatrevolt]

Reasons I believe Zilla to be scum:

1.

Stretching her reasoning to make her votes seem more valid

.

I find this to be a big scum tell. There are no reasons for a townie to attempt to "stretch" their case into more than it actually is. If you think someone is scum because of X, there isn't any reason to toss in Y or Z that are essentially irrelevant to spice it up. Scum, however, will do this to make their cases seem to be more than they are and to make their votes appear more legitimate.

a) Her initial vote on me. She voted me because I was pissing her off by not providing a summary of the game. That kind of morphed into me not being "accountable" because I didn't give her one. That was her reason. What she did, was stretch her case into "more" by also attacking my vote on MacavityLock (based on reasons she had not bothered to look into), by attacking my style of defending myself (a style she also utilizes), and by attacking my playstyle as scummy. Those three reasons add up to essentially nothing, and were not the reason Zilla voted me at all. So why does she add them to the case?

b) Her vote on Mykonian. Her vote on him is mostly because he asked her to. Meh, ok. Why add in the point about him being the first to mention a SK, then? She had just finished going on and on about how we spent too much time stuck in the random phase and too much time discussing all the SK nonsense, then she turns around and includes it as a reason for voting Mykonian? Really? Willing to change your mind that quickly when you need another point against someone?

2.

Hypocrisy

.

I don't think hypocrisy by itself is a huge point, because townies can occasionally have a bit of hypocrisy. However, I do think hypocrisy points more to scum than town. Attacking someone over something you are equally as guilty of reflects insincerity. If you play a certain way, then there's no reason for you to consider that a scumtell in others.

a) Post 297. In this post, we see Zilla vote for Mykonian essentially from 4 "off the cuff" 1 liners. Sound familiar? She has just finished attacking me for voting Birthday without going into detail on my reasons. And she does the exact same thing.

b) Attacking me as scum for aggressively defending myself, or responding in a hypersensitive manner to accusations against me. Zilla is guilty of exactly the same playstyle.

c) She asked me my current opinion on Panzer, despite me having given it to her recently, and I linked her to the post that outlined it. She harassed me 4 different times over providing a link rather than retyping it out (this matters, why??). Compare that with me asking her for her stance on Birthday. She first ignored it because she didn't think I was serious because it was in the thread, and then she responded by giving me a link to the post where she mentioned it. If Zilla had such a giant issue (she went crazy over this meaningless point) with me linking to my stance rather than simply retyping it out, and if she actually believed it to be a meaningful tell in any sense, then there is no way in hell she links to her stance rather than retypes it out.

3.

Strawmanning

.

Strawmanning is essentially pulling one aspect of a case or a point out, arguing against that specific aspect, and then expanding that to say that the entire case is flawed. Oftentimes scum will do that to avoid answering points they cannot answer, or to generate suspicion. For example, let's say I lay down a Martin Luther style 95 reasons to think someone is scum. You pick out reason 84, argue against it, and then go on to say my case is flawed. Maybe that specific reason is flawed, but it doesn't nullify the case in entirety. Maybe I say something like "if Panzer is town, what would we gain from his lynch" as a challenge to people suggesting lynching for information is acceptable and you go on to extract "Panzer is town" and attribute it to my belief. At any rate, here are the examples I've given before:

a) Post 385. I mention that I don't understand which of two possible mindsets Birthday had. You cut it off and take my "I don't understand" out of context to imply that I don't understand the Birthday situation at large. That's a strawman. You then proceed to dismiss my reasoning, saying that Birthday's large post would clear it up, which suggests that YOU were the one who didn't understand, considering the section you had just quoted above is in direct contradiction to that.

b) Post 480 - Post 482. In the first post I attack the idea that lynching Panzer is acceptable even if he is town. In that second post Zilla attacks me on the basis that I'm defending against a Panzer lynch because he could be town. Strawman. She rips out my example scenario and attacks it as my belief.

I will admit that this is one of the weaker aspects of my case, not because I'm wrong about her strawmanning me, but because it's plausible that Zilla does this as town. However, at a certain point, the way she goes about doing it becomes scummy. I won't go into detail on that yet, I want to see how she responds to the above first.

4.

Backtracking

.

a) Post 396. This post can basically be summed up as, "I didn't bother looking into the validity of Goat's arguments enough to realize that he was actually correct about Birthday." I find this scummy, because she went out of her way to defend Birthday, and clearly did so without a full grasp of the situation. Why as town, would you stretch yourself to defend a player without truly understanding the extent of the case against him? I argue that she was doing this entirely to discredit my case for the purpose of throwing suspicion on me.

b) Post 459. I discussed this in Post 551. Her language use here is highly suspect. "I may have" or "perhaps it was just" or "this has aged well (what does that even mean?)." This doesn't express confidence or truthfulness at all. Either you did or you did not change your mind, there is no "may" about it. I think this is scummy. If she truly had a change of heart regarding the usefulness of the SK discussion, I doubt her post would read like an elaborate cover up. Again, I think she changed her mind because she needed more dirt on Mykonian, and here is where her slippery behavior caught up to her and she had to try to cover her butt.

c) Post 471 she lists GIEFF as last on her suspect list with Dour. Now in Post 580 she states that GIEFF was originally one of her most pro-town players because she didn't want to distinguish his play from Dour? Apparently Zilla found Gieff to be one of her top two townies, and didn't even bother to look into his play to make that judgment.

5. Inconsistencies/Scummy behavior.

a) Defending BB without an understanding of my case against him. I gave 3 "off the cuff 1 liners" as my vote reasoning. She instantly attributed my case against him as poor for that reason (note above where she employs the same vote style to Mykonian), but yet she didn't even understand the extent of my case. She didn't know what his "suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon" was, yet rejected my case despite being in the dark there. When I did go into detail regarding that, she argued it was a bad case despite having a very incomplete understanding of the situation.

b) This has been brought up before, but she was not voting or pursuing Birthday despite him being her top suspect. At post 387, she listed Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and myself at 20% in terms of suspicion. Later on, she notes that Birthday was at 75%, and that her suspicion level regarding Birthday had not changed from the time of that post. Why then, was she not voting for, or pressuring Birthday whatsoever, despite him being her top suspect? Instead, she was pressuring me (20%), and her pressure was because I linked to a post detailing my suspicion of Panzer, rather than retype it. Zilla didn't even bother to check that link, because she proceeded to argue against 240, not 295, the post that I had linked. So rather than attack her top suspect, Birthday, she attacked me, over something entirely meaningless and a misrepresentation (post 240 rather than 295).

c) However, and I point this out very clearly in Post 554, Zilla then goes on to vote for BB, despite arguing that I was her top suspect over and over again with GIEFF, and despite the idea that BB is less likely to be scum if I am scum. Furthermore, in a couple of places, she responds in a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do" manner, which is suspicious because GIEFF and myself are two players she linked as scum. Why would she ever want to do what her scum team said to do? For reference: Post 575 and Post 592. The first post is a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do post" and the 2nd is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and reflects her mindset of voting Birthday to avoid suspicion rather than because she legitimately believed him most likely to be scum. Again, why would she vote Birthday because the two people she paired as scum (myself, GIEFF) pressured her to do so? I will also note, that I told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

d) Deflection. She loves to defend against a strawman of my arguments or turn it around and attack me "instead" of defending against the point I make. I give 3 examples of deflection in Post 551, although there are more places she does this.

-------

That is basically the summary of my case against her. Points 1, 4, 5 are the major reasons behind why I think she is scum. 2 and 3 (Hypocrisy/Strawmanning) are not as big of reasons, but I do still believe they suggest Zilla as scum (hypocrisy suggests insincerity, for instance).

I'll answer/address other posts after I get some dinner.

[Goatrevolt]

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I did shoot down that other reasoning. It looks like GIEFF just provided the links to prove it. My initial case on BB was not weak. You still have not suggested in any way how three one line statements makes a case weak (and if you do actually believe this, your case on Mykonian would be similarly "weak"). I also have not extended my Birthday case, at all. Where have I done so? You really love to make accusations without any underlying backup.

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

I was joining a growing bandwagon on Birthday? Really? Mykonian was the only other vote. I championed the wagon entirely. Pulled reasons out of thin air? Damn, I must be a skilled magician, because Birthday agreed with my reasoning.

You need to make the rest of your post clearer. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes from, or what you're trying to even argue.

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

First of all, I mentioned that I was busy. Second of all, you didn't address anything even close to resembling my case on you. You pulled out random posts with stuff you wanted me to address or stuff I didn't address. If you wanted to address my case on you as found within the thread, you would have answered post 551 and 554. What you did here is essentially strawmanning. You pulled random quotes from god knows where and said "Goat didn't back this up, or goat hasn't qualified this, or Goat didn't address my complaint of him" and then argued against those specific points, essentially concluding my entire case is flawed, despite the fact that you haven't addressed the meat of my case at all. Fancy footwork there.

[Goatrevolt]

I wish I had some extra "misrepresentation+"'s to throw at you, but Zilla has exhausted the supply.

Hahaha.

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.

SL mentioned keyboard issues in the other game I am playing with her. I don't think she is directly lying about something so trivial. She lurked extensively in that game as well, although recently she has become more active.

Lest I be crucified for my error, I want to note that

I will also note, that I

never

told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

I screwed up the above quote. Bolded is the fix.

[Goatrevolt]

I read it. You have an inaccurate representation of literally everything that has taken place throughout the entire game. You misrepresent me every step of the way, from taking my martin luther

example

out of context, to continuing to misrepresent my

example

of why lynching for information is not good.

Zilla, I'm curious. In other games, do people complain about you misrepresenting them frequently? You have an extremely distorted view of the game, and I simply do not see you as a townie possibly being this off-kilter. You don't strike me as someone who is incapable of understanding example scenarios and the like, yet you continually are unable to do so.

I simply do not see how a townie could possibly come to some of those conclusions. For example, check out this quote in regards to GIEFF:

It's not even that I didn't bother to distinguish him from Dour that they were both off in their own world, locked in struggle with each other, and

hardly commenting on the rest of the game

. They were perhaps the last people to come in with unique identities to me. You couldn't look at GIEFF without talking about his relationship with Dour, and vice versa.

Since they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players

, nor were they seeking easy targets, they seemed most likely to be town in a village full of people looking like scum.

Bolded emphasis mine. She states that she had GIEFF and Dour as town because they were locked in a debate with each other and didn't have outstanding stances. Um...GIEFF was championing the Panzer wagon really hard, and had plenty of stances within the thread. I simply do not see how town-Zilla could ever say something like this, which is obviously false. I can see scum-Zilla saying it if she's trying to justify a change in stance regarding GIEFF that she otherwise has no real reason for.

This isn't even mentioning the idea that one of her reasons for voting Mykonian was because he was "non-committal" and one of her reasons for voting me was based on some idea that I had been floating through the thread and didn't have solid stances. She agreed with my point that BB had not taken solid stances and that it was the only valid point of my case against him. However, apparently in the case of GIEFF and Dour, not having outstanding stances on other players puts them at the spot of the top two townies.

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.

[Goatrevolt]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the contradiction I pointed out in my recent post?

Goat, a question. Why are you against policy lynching me in this game?

Not that I would want to be policy lynched, but in the other game we share, you gave me a fair amount of

flake

because of 'lurking' and stated that you'd see me hanged for it, but not here. What gives?

I addressed that in this post. I think Zilla is scum. If she is scum, I think that makes you more likely to be town based on your early Dejkha pressure. Besides, I would never advocate a policy lynch over someone I strongly feel to be scum.

Also, I laughed at your freudian slip bolded above.

[Goatrevolt]

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)

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm not saying that Zilla thought you were scummy in that post. I know the point of that post was to provide possible reasons she could attack anyone. I'm saying that she shows knowledge in that post that you have attacked other players throughout the game, rather than just Dour. This becomes relevant, because her stated reasoning for finding you town was that you focused only on Dour and didn't have stances on the rest of the game. That post shows that she is lying, because she shows knowledge that you have been attacking Panzer, and thus have other stances than just Dour.

To clarify. Zilla said that she listed you as town because you were focusing only on Dour. In that post, she expresses knowledge that you have not been only focusing on Dour, which means that her stated reason for finding you town (no stances on other players) is a lie.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Not at all. She stated that she had GIEFF along with Dour as top townies because they were locked up on each other without stances on the rest of the game. That is a lie, because GIEFF had a strong stance on Panzer, and he had been tunneling Panzer based on that stance for pages. Zilla linked to a post that noted that.

On the other hand, to lie as scum that way makes little more sense then it does as town, isn't it?

No. She got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She had to lie. She got called out for her change in stance on GIEFF, and as scum, she had no readily available answer for why her stance changed. She changes her stance as scum based on what she wants to accomplish. Townies, however, change their stances based on evidence suggesting players to be scum or town.

[Goatrevolt]

To make sure my point gets across clearly:

What I believe to be GIEFF's interpretation of Goat's stance: Zilla stated that GIEFF was scummy for tunneling on Panzer despite calling him town. Goat is misrepresenting the post because he "overlooked" the idea of Zilla's stances in that post being example and not necessarily true.

Goat's actual stance: Zilla said in her recent post that she had GIEFF and Dour as town because they had been "hardly commenting on the rest of the game" and "they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players." In the post Zilla linked, by stating a possible reason for finding GIEFF scummy is that he has been "tunneling on Panzer" she shows knowledge that GIEFF has other stances than just ones on Dour. One such stance is his constant attacks on Panzer, a stance which she is knowledgeable of.

Zilla's statement: "hardly commenting on the rest of the game." She knows GIEFF has been attacking Panzer, thus this is a lie.

Zilla's statement: "They didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players." If GIEFF tunneling on Panzer is a

possible

avenue for attacking him, then it's clear he has had outstanding stances on other players, thus this is a lie.

Zilla didn't have a valid reason for why her stance on GIEFF changed from one of her most townie to a scum buddy to me in the span of a few posts. That's why her reasoning for why she originally thought he was a townie doesn't match up with the facts. She was put on the spot, and had to lie. As scum, she knows who is town or scum. Her most townie is kind of an arbitrary appointment based on how she best wants to be viewed. As scum, she might put Dour and GIEFF as her most townie, because she thinks that is what will make her look the most pro-town, for instance. It's not because they've actually done anything to make her think they are town. She already knows this. That's why it's such a big deal that she has obviously lied about the reasons for initially finding them town. As a townie, she would not have to lie about this, because she wouldn't have listed them as her most pro-town unless she legitimately believed that to be true. When pressured, she could simply give her reasons. As scum, though, her reasoning is "because I know they are town because I'm scum" or "this is what will make me look the best" which she cannot give as her reasoning. So she has to lie. And her lie just got called out.

[Goatrevolt]

Yes, I've read that and I don't think it makes sense, see contradiction indicated in bold and italics:

I don't want to policy lynch SL, or have her replaced. I think she's more likely to be town if Zilla is scum

(early pressure on Dejkha would

have to be busing in that case),

which I think is likely

. I just want her to catch up and start playing the game.

But no matter for now, I don't think you are scum atm but I also very much doubt Zilla is scum.

There is no contradiction. You're reading it wrong because you're not taking into account the parenthesis. I'm not saying you busing Dejkha is likely, I'm saying Zilla as scum is likely. If I was trying to say you busing Dejkha was likely, it would be inside the parenthesis.

On Zilla, the bravado with which she made her entry and the fact that she has been actively pissing people off doesn't read like scum to me. Also I don't see her doing the flipflop she had going on Goat if she were scum, I think town uncertainty is more likely.

Originally yes, that's why I had her as town. Then there comes a point where you realize some of her behavior does not fit a town mindset.

As for her flip-flopping, a lot of it makes little sense. There is her attacking me when admittedly she should have been attacking BB. Then there is her swapping her vote to BB when she just finished going on and on to GIEFF about how I was her top suspect. I don't buy "town uncertainty." I'm calling it scum opportunism.

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.

You're still missing the point. She directly lied. She gave a reason for why she initially had you as town that simply cannot be the truth. Her stated reason: GIEFF didn't have stances on anyone other than Dour. That simply cannot be the truth. She knows you had stances on people other than Dour.

I'm not trying to "demonstrate the flip flop." What purpose would that serve? I'm showing how she blatantly lied.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Exactly. So then, what's the catch?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I guess that makes sense. I was going to argue about how Zilla lying about her reasoning is your big number 1 in terms of catching scum and that you weren't acting on it, but I guess BB also lied about his reasoning for voting Panzer.

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.

No, I would say my suspicion of him is less than what it was back then. This is due a lot to Zilla. I think BB's initial point on Zilla (her irrational defense of him) is a valid one. I think BB is much less likely to be scum if Zilla is scum, and I feel stronger about her being scum.

BB and Zilla have exhibited the same tell, lying about their reasoning. That is a huge tell. The big difference for me is that BB has been straightforward since that point. Zilla has not been. She prefers to distort and misrepresent and deflect. I've never gotten the impression from her that she is trying to find scum or town, but more that she is trying to assert that people are scum or town. This is evidenced in the lie I just caught her on regarding her change from you being a townie to being scum as well as your recent post that looked through our early interactions. She didn't have you as town because she legitimately believed aspects of your play made you likely to be town. If that were the case, she wouldn't have had to lie about it. She wasn't trying to determine if I was scum. That's obvious. She didn't go back and examine my stances, and she didn't bother to know what my case on BB was even about. Instead, I distinctly got the impression she was trying to pin me as scum. She threw 3 points at me, I shot them down, so she moved on to other points and ignored the first ones.

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."

No, the period of time doesn't negate the action. However, do you feel BB has been lurking? I don't think that is the case.

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?

No. I don't think this is a valid point. You have said just as many words as she has this game, and I feel the whole of your play has been strongly pro-town thus far. More words just mean more chances for her insincere suspicions to catch up to her. As town, she wouldn't have an issue trying to keep her story straight, because her story wouldn't be based on lies and deceit.

I'm going to address your specific complaints. I numbered them, and will answer with the corresponding number.

1. 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?
2. 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).
3. I don't like that both of these hops on the wagon happened at least partly due to being convinced by Goat.
4. I don't like that Goat is now trying to get me back on the wagon.
5. I don't like the fact that mykonian has TWICE called Zilla a townie.
6. I don't like Panzer saying "we are in danger of overthinking this lynch" after I hopped off.
7. 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.

8. I don't like the fact that mykonian has now called Zilla a townie for the THIRD time
9. I don't like the fact that mykonian wants a Zilla-claim even though he doesn't think she is scum
10. 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
11. 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
12.I don't like the fact that people are still demanding Zilla claims, even though she is at L-4

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.

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?

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?

4. Addressed already. And you would prefer me to join the BB wagon over the Zilla one. You maybe weren't as aggressive about it as I was, but you have the same mindset I had.

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.

6. This is just a difference in opinion, but I agreed with his point. Long days are not always helpful to the town, and longer days can muddy the water and confuse things.

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.

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.

9. That boggles me a bit as well, but I think it's a clash of misunderstanding. He thinks she's going to be lynched and that for some reason we would lynch her without a claim. From his posts, I get the picture that him wanting Zilla to claim is out of defense for her, not the opposite.

10. He did the same thing to the BB wagon. I don't understand it, but it's not a tell that only applies to this wagon. Besides, I don't feel like Dour's in and out on the Zilla wagon is a huge tell by itself, because it can be read as busing scum, indecisive townie, scum afraid of dirtying his hands, etc.

11. Technically, Zilla did not live up to her end of the bargain. She said she would claim if certain criteria were met, and as I recall, those criteria were met and she did not claim. I'll have to check the specifics on it. Right now, I agree that she shouldn't have to claim at L-4. Back then, I think she should have claimed, and I don't fault people for harassing her over not doing so.

12. Related to 11.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

First of all, this is not true.

Secondly, Post 471 is where you mention GIEFF and Dour are last on your suspect list. Prior to that post is Post 446 where you note that the difference in information between a Panzer lynch and Mykonian lynch is what we would learn about GIEFF. We wouldn't learn anything about GIEFF if he did have any outstanding stances besides his stance on Dour. Next up is Post 388 where you directly question GIEFF on his stance of agreeing with my suspicion on BB. Ignoring for a second that you thought my case on BB was weak and scummy, but you didn't have an issue with GIEFF agreeing with it, this is you commenting directly on a stance GIEFF took. "has no outstanding stances"...

I could similarly post my quite large case on Goat, but it really seems like no matter what I do, Goat won't be lynched. I don't recall any other time I've been in this position before. Usually, even if my case is flawed, scum will jump on because there's a case they don't have to be accountable for, and usually my cases aren't as ignored as they have been in this one.

Read: "My spin on Goat isn't working out. The players in this game are too smart to grab hold of my non-existant logic, and people think I'm scum. I need to change directions now. I'll give them some weak justification for hopping off Goat and then move on to Mykonian. Maybe people will buy my Mykonian case and this deflection will allow me to escape unharmed!"

Goat's case is based on "catching" me at inconsistencies, which translates to, either intentionally or not, misunderstanding and misrepresenting me, or tunnelvisioning.

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I present to you

Exhibit 1: Deflection.

In this exhibit, we see cornered scum Zilla masterfully attempting to wiggle her way out of an airtight case by spinning my catching her at inconsistencies as misunderstanding/misrepresentation/or tunnelvision. Notice how there is no actual attempt to debunk my statements, or prove how my inconsistencies are not actual inconsistencies. There is merely a statement that they are somehow misrepresentation, and then she goes on to change the subject.

I would like to direct your attention to an analogous situation that oddly mirrors the exact same scenario we find ourselves currently presented with. That scenario takes place in Post 544. In that post, we see Zilla similarly cornered with arguments she has no reply to, and we see her similarly attempt to wiggle her way out by changing her vote to Birthday, and trying to put pressure on him to deflect from her growing case. Note the end of that post, and how she changes directions from fighting a losing battle defending herself against points to trying to go on the offensive by calling out Panzer for lurking and attacking Mykonian. That looks quite a bit like deflection.

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

I seriously do not understand how people can look at Zilla and not see her as scum. None of her pressure is scum hunting. Look at her recent vote changes and the timing. They are all opportunistic. Notice how Zilla no longer wishes to argue with me, or vote me after I have "misrepresented her stance." Instead, she takes a pacifying tone and changes direction to Mykonian. There is no legitimate suspicion backing her actions here. This is all done because this is what is best for Zilla.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF, my points are no less valid because of any perceived emotional ties between myself and Zilla. I will admit, I have gotten emotional at various points of the game, but I would not be driving a lynch on her for this many consecutive pages if my vote was based in emotion. If my vote on her were purely emotion, I would not be basing it

entirely

off of evidence. Not a single point I have raised against her is related to my frustration of her. Not one.

Even if emotion were the grounding for my vote

, it does not make my points against her any less valid. Zilla is about as obvious scum as one can possibly get right now. I'm frustrated that nobody else sees it. I've pointed it out as clearly as I can and in as many fashions as I can. Her recent posts are textbook deflection. Why is she changing her vote off of me? Is it because nobody else buys me as scum? That didn't stop her for the entire rest of the game when she was voting me and she was the only one on my wagon. No, that isn't the reason. The real reason is that she needed to change the subject, change pace, push for someone else because she is in over her head. Her vote on Birthday was exactly the same. That vote wasn't placed out of legitimate suspicion. I've argued that point so many times prior. She said I was scum over and over again, but then voted for Birthday, who is less likely to be scum if I am. Those plays are not ones townies make. Zilla is not a stupid player. Look at the way she can manipulate a discussion. You've seen firsthand how she manipulated our first back and forth to her ends. Look at the way she has changed her mind from voting me and it doesn't matter if nobody else is, to voting BB because she realizes I'm not going to get lynched, to voting me again, and now back to dropping my case because nobody else is on board. She has flip-flopped on that so many times, and every single time it lines up with an opportunistic need to change the subject.

I cannot do any more to change anyone's mind. I have argued this point so many times, in such a clear fashion for pages and pages. Her wagon is not scum driven. Scum driven wagons don't peter out as the evidence in support of the wagon grows. Zilla is not town. If she were, she would be able to explain her inconsistencies rather than deflect. Her suspicion is not legitimate. If it was, she would not be so inconsistent and dishonest about it.

[Goatrevolt]

Because I am unrelenting:

From Post 738:

I think I must have

missed most of 551/554 somehow

, that was during a really busy time when I was on between classes and had lots of projects due. If it's really necessary, I'll go back and answer that monster as well.

From Post 580:

Second, there's the whole nature of their disengage plus

goat telling Birthday not to claim.

I thought Birthday was a top suspect for goat?

Why would he switch so superfluously

and tell Birthday not to claim?

From my own Post 551, and Post 554:

Unvote, Vote Zilla

Also, I can claim, but if people think this lead is better, I suggest we follow it.

I'd guess this is obvious by now, but

there is no need for you to claim right now.

------

Lies. She didn't "miss" 551 and 554. She ignored them. Ignoring them isn't necessarily a scum tell. Lying about it is.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Point me to where Zilla says this.

The only "real" answer she gave was a "whoops, why wasn't I voting BB" followed by stating that it's "in the past now" moving on to say we're dealing with a different issue now, and then making a statement regarding her opinion on BB that ends with "I guess." What part of that explanation satisfied you?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

It was in response to that question, yes, but in that very post right after she lists the percentages she says "for likely to be scum." That was her opinion on percent likelihood to be scum, and what sparked the question isn't really relevant in terms of the answer. To my knowledge, Zilla has never argued anything regarding the nested association you speak of. That may be the way you interpreted, but it is not an answer I recall her ever giving.

Ultimately, the point you're getting at was that she has addressed some of my concerns. I agree with what you are saying, although there is a bit of a disconnect in terms of what I mean vs. what you do. 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 guess an analogy would be if I were a reporter and I asked her a tough question. She fielded the question, but her response didn't actually answer the question.

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?

Mykonian I believe to be town. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I'm not really picking up on any hidden motives behind his play. 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. I also view him as somewhat more likely to be town if Zilla is scum.

Panzer's recent play has struck me as pro-town, actually, enough to the point where I no longer really believe him to be a Zilla scum buddy. I had him paired as a scum buddy to Zilla, based entirely on her stances. I was basing that off of how Zilla was always attacking either me or Mykonian, frequently using the reasoning of us defending Panzer, but yet she was never actually attacking Panzer. If she perceives defense of Panzer to be scummy, then it stands to reason she feels Panzer himself is scummy. Why then was she always attacking us, but not him? Then there was her "I can't believe how bad Panzer is lurking" statement right as she changed her vote to BB in post 544. It seemed extremely insincere. However, his own play doesn't make a whole lot of sense if he is a scumbuddy to Zilla. Refusing to play the game unless she claims is not typical scum buddy play, as in that case he would be interested in moving away from Zilla if possible.

Nothing about BB's play has struck me as scummy since he admitted he was lying about his reasoning for voting Panzer. I wouldn't argue he's been terribly pro-town either, though. He has at least remained consistent. I think the original points are still valid against him, but I have no new suspicions. If Zilla is scum, then he is very likely town.

Do I find them as scummy as you do: No.
More or less scummy than BB: Less, for now. If Zilla is scum, then more.
More or less scummy than each other: I view Mykonian as slightly more pro-town than Panzer, though they are close for now (roughly middle of the pack).

--------

Right now, Zilla is overwhelmingly my top choice for scum. I do not want to lynch anyone else, nor do I support the lynch of anyone except Zilla. I'm going to continue to fight to make this lynch happen. She is dishonest, inconsistent, slippery, manipulative and I don't see how she could possibly be town. Her suspicions are not sincere, they are fabrications for the purpose of appearing pro-town, not for the purpose of lynching scum. I have given plenty of reasons why this is the case.

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

I'd argue a Dour/Zilla/Qwints scum team, with a side of Ting/Subgenius possible but less likely. It all starts with Zilla, though. The rest of my suspicions are based on her flip (which is highly likely to be scum), and are not meaningful until we know that information.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I don't know if I should reveal all my cards, but I think Dourgrim is a scumbuddy to Zilla. In fact, he would be my first priority target tomorrow if Zilla is scum.

Let's see, Dour is opposed to lynching BB because of WIFOM related to Zilla. What WIFOM? You mean the WIFOM that says if BB is town Zilla is next on the block? Ok...

He then votes for Zilla but at a point that doesn't make sense. He doesn't vote for her based on my case, but instead votes for her when I make the statement that Panzer could be a scum buddy. That doesn't seem like a normal townie place to make a vote. What about Panzer being a scum buddy makes Zilla a more attractive target, and why didn't Dour even bother to want to know my reasoning behind that statement before voting on it?

He then unvotes at the first sign of the wagon dying back down, and for weak reasoning (I had a town read on her originally, and I shouldn't dismiss it).

I don't know why his play detracts from Zilla's wagon. In fact, Dour's jumping back off the wagon gives me more confidence in it, especially since Dour was one of my picks for a Zilla scum buddy. He responded exactly the way one would expect a scum buddy would. He bused her when it looked like her lynch was going to happen, and backed off as soon as things started to turn away.

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.

Panzer didn't jump on because the wagon looked like it might be derailed or anything like that. He jumped

back

on Zilla because of my pressure on him. You can't argue both points.

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.

You could say Panzer's vote was based on my persuasion, or you could say his vote was practically on Zilla for all intensive purposes anyway, and I just made it happen with my pressure. I never "persuaded" Panzer into believing Zilla was scum. He was the first on that train. I just got him to stick his vote where his mouth was.

In terms of Dour, read above. Can you say busing?

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'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?

Panzer is not emotionally invested. Zilla has not pressured him.
BB is not emotionally invested. Zilla has not pressured him.

The only reason they don't "count" is based on your assessment that they fall into the "scummy" and thus "non-counting" portion of the game.

Finally, you haven't really addressed any of my points regarding emotion. Does my case on her look emotional, or is it grounded in physical evidence? Does it matter if emotion is what caused me to inspect Zilla in the first place, if my case is actually based on legitimate evidence to suggest she is scum?

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?

This isn't a problem. I'm just showing how your case on BB fits the same criteria for why you are rejecting the one on Zilla. You don't need 3 separate people with good references and a background check to champion a lynch. All you need is evidence that the player in question is scum. There is no end to that.

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.

I think you are a townie. Is that a scum slip? Or is that my opinion based on the evidence within the thread?

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.

Mykonian probably is assuming Zilla is town. And that doesn't make him scum. I'm assuming you're town. Why, because I don't think your play makes you out to be scum? Am I scum because my assumption is that you're town?

There's a difference in assuming someone's alignment because you know their alignment or doing so because of what you believe their alignment to be based on the evidence.

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?

Scummiest players based on your assessment. I've never found Mykonian to be scummy. Panzer and BB I have, earlier on in the thread, but I find them far less scummy now.

I'll put it this way: If you truly believed Zilla was scum, you would not have a problem with people pushing her to claim. Your assumptions would be something like: "Hm...Panzer is pushing Zilla hard, maybe he's actually town because she's scum." or "Hm...Panzer's actions here are probably just him busing Zilla."

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.

Panzer, Mykonian, and Zilla have all voted for BB throughout the course of this game. Zilla put BB to L-2 with a suspicious jump from me to him, and that is not detracting your crusade against BB at all. Considering your stated suspicion of Zilla, that should be a

huge

detracting point from the BB wagon, but you haven't even considered it. Quite frankly, these are not valid reasons for not being on Zilla. If you believed this to be true, you'd be arguing for a subgenius lynch because he has so few connections.

[Goatrevolt]

Hmm.. this post is interesting in that he accuses GIEFF of extending his case much the same as Goat accused me of. Goat's thoughts on a supposedly pro-town player pointing this out on another supposedly pro-town player?

I disagree with Mykonian's stance in that post. I disagree with a good number of his stances in this game. I don't believe that he is scum, though.

I haven't seen anything from him that suggests to me he is actually scum. I can't think of any time where I was surprised by a stance he took, or felt that he was opportunistic, or lying about something. I'm not seeing scum motives behind his actions.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat: basing your read of an entire game around one hypothesis is crappy and freaking lazy, i don't even understand how you can deduce the alignment of so many people just based on one person.

You're accusing me of being lazy? Funny.

My stances aren't lazy. I've caught scum. I've worked for 10+ pages trying to get this scum lynched. There's nothing lazy about that.

What is crappy about me basing my read of an entire game around my ideas of who is scum and town? I think Zilla is overwhelming scum. That has influenced my read of the game. And? Do I somehow need to come up with a couple more hypotheses because the one I am convinced of apparently isn't enough?

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

You don't see a scum motive behind demanding a claim from a player you don't want to see lynched?

I assume this is directed at me? GIEFF, you're looking only at the what and not bothering to consider the why. I can see scum motivation behind doing so. I don't see scum motivations behind Mykonian doing so. Getting people to claim means more information for the scum. Is that Mykonian's reasoning behind why he wants to do it? I don't really think so. Why do you?

Essentially, my town read of Mykonian boils down to the point SL made about him.

I'd like to see your response to my posts 775/776.

[Goatrevolt]

SL: I want to see a reply to my post 751 and 769. Your defense of Zilla basically boils down to:

1. "Scum wouldn't be antagonistic." You were antagonistic as scum in our recent game.

2. "Zilla's flip-flop on me reads like indecisive town." Her flip-flop on me doesn't coincide with any new evidence to change her mind. It coincides with Zilla being under a great deal of pressure and needing to deflect from it. I suggest you look at Posts 554 and 769, which point out how her voting does not match her suspicions.

[Goatrevolt]

Dour: I'm not acting on anything that requires knowledge of Zilla's alignment. Though I may think you a scum buddy, I'm not acting on it until I get confirmation of her alignment. For the record, there's nothing wrong with me saying "If Zilla is scum, I think the rest of the scum come from this pool of 4 players" even if there aren't that many total scum in the game. I can only vote one person at a time, so it doesn't matter if I have 6 plausible scum in a 12 player game, as long as I am pursuing who I think is most likely to be scum.

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

What was the difference? Why was your vote still on Panzer when you first agreed with my case on Zilla? What convinced you that Panzer was no longer the best lynch and that Zilla was? What changed your mind back?

I'm sorry, should I have dismissed my earlier read on Zilla and blindly followed? Should I not have moved my vote to a person whose scumminess I was more confident in as the conversation developed? I moved my vote because I considered the cases involved and believed (and still believe) that Panzer was/is the scummiest-looking player in the game. You're just pissed that your case didn't carry through to the satisfaction of the rest of the players in the game.

While I am annoyed we haven't lynched Zilla, that's not at all why I'm suspicious of your vote swap. What about the development of the conversation between your vote on Zilla to your vote back to Panzer caused you to change your mind?

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

Meh, I would guess it's the large walls of text more so than my arrogance that is keeping people away. If my arrogance is driving people away, then I'll shut up. I'm not sure what you're saying with the "stop tunneling" bit. If you're saying that I should quit Zilla and focus on other targets as well, then that isn't going to happen. I'm not interested in lynching anyone besides Zilla.

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.

I didn't actually claim that. I said there was no attempt to debunk. By debunk I mean "show to be false." She may have addressed those points, but didn't actually try to show it to be false as much as dismiss/deflect/misrep, etc.

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.

[Goatrevolt]

This is a fair point. However, what I was trying to get at is that you've lumped about half the game together with Zilla at varying points, which doesn't lend lots of creedence to your current theory (me and qwints). Of course, I believe your theory even less than the rest of the game because I know I'm Town, but that's neither here nor there (as pretty much any sane Mafia player would say the same thing).

My theories about who are scum with Zilla aren't terribly relevant unless Zilla is dead and scum. I pointed out my theory on you specifically because GIEFF was using your on/off the wagon as a point against it, and I didn't see how that affected Zilla-scum at all. I don't care if people aren't giving those theories any credence, because they aren't relevant until we learn about Zilla.

I'm not intentionally blinding myself to anything. I see the validity of the case on BB, I was the one initially championing it. I understand why people are after Mykonian, but I personally disagree. I'm not going to "open my eyes" and support other cases if I don't actually believe those people to be scum, and I would be lying if I said my opinion on Zilla didn't affect that.

For instance, BB. I don't think he's scum if Zilla is scum. What you're essentially asking me to do is ignore Zilla and then evaluate whether or not I believe BB to be scum. The problem is, it wouldn't make sense for me to do that, because I strongly believe Zilla to be scum, which would make BB likely town. My evidence is that BB is town based on my evidence that Zilla is scum. I'm not going to just ignore that.

You're asking me to compromise and find other lynches I will agree with. That's not going to happen. It's not a matter of me "shutting myself out" or ignoring cases out of my irrational pursuit of Zilla. It's a matter of me being convinced Zilla is scum and my opinion that it would be wrong for the town to lynch anyone else.

And yes, I realize I'm being arrogant. I'm saying that I know who is scum and those who aren't in support of the Zilla lynch are wrong. That's essentially what everyone else is doing as well, though. I'm just doing it more prevalently.

Dour: Can you give me a breakdown of the points that you think makes Panzer likely to be scum? Then could you explain your stance on Zilla. What about my case on her did you agree with? What about her is keeping you from voting her? Finally, could you explain why you think the points against Panzer outweigh the points against Zilla.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

You're missing my point. 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? As for the "enjoy ripping this to shreds" comment, that's more of a display of my suspicion of Zilla rather than emotional investment. That's a facet of my playstyle more than an emotional reaction to Zilla. Call it excitement at catching scum, you could say.

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.

I've done that already. In fact, the reason why Dour and I are going back and forth is because I paired him with Zilla. Check out the bottom of Post 775 and top of Post 776.

I can elaborate on my reasoning for more than just Dour if necessary.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I did read her case. The majority of it is "fluff": Her pulling out Mykonian posts and saying this is scummy, but not really giving anything to show why it is. Her long case against him just kind of points out a lot of things he's done, but I don't really see where she actually presents a case of why he is scum.

I would argue that Mykonian did extend his case. He was attacking you for LAL, you defended against that point, and so he picked up others.

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 equate it something like this:

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?

whereas I equate me and Zilla like this:

Zilla: A, B, C
Goat: A, B, C, are wrong
Zilla: D, E, F
Goat: D, E, F are wrong
Zilla: G, H, where G is the way you said D, E, F were wrong
Goat: Unbelievable...

I also think you are misrepresenting him a bit. He brought up LAL because Zilla specifically questioned him on it. Then you attacked him bringing it up again. Do you see what I mean?

Dour: You're right, I'm tunneling, however, I don't see that as being an issue. Also, you misrep me a bit. If someone else were "proven" to be scum, yes I would lynch them. Based on the current information, that is not the case. Also, I asked you for that information to help my read on you, mostly.

-------

I think there is a bit of a misconception that I am ignoring stuff. I've read every post in this game, and many of them I've scoured far more than I should. Just because I believe Zilla is scum doesn't mean I haven't been trying to determine the alignments of others. That's why I ask Mykonian for his opinion every time I present some new aspect to the Zilla case, or question subgenius or Ting on their stances, or question GIEFF on his stance on Zilla, etc. Much of my discussion is based on Zilla, but I'm still trying to figure out the alignments of the other players.

I think Zilla is scum.

it is lynching Zilla based on it that I am afraid of.

Either you don't think she is scum, or there's some reason why scum shouldn't be lynched that I am not aware 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.

I'm stalled. Zilla as scum is my perception on the game. I can't evaluate whether or not I'm correct on my reads on other players without knowing that information, and I can't reject that information in evaluating other players. For example, say you were a cop and you investigated someone and found that they were scum. Let's say that person was clamoring really hard for the lynch of someone else the prior day. You might then think the 2nd person is town by nature of your information on the first. Would it be rational for you to say "I'm going to ignore my cop investigation and look at the 2nd player based solely on his play?" No, it wouldn't. You have a giant reason to believe that they are town, and ignoring it would be foolish. While I don't have confirmation that Zilla is scum, I am fairly convinced, and I can't just brush that aside when considering other players.

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.

My case on BB came

during

Zilla's initial set of back and forth's with me. I was pushing for his lynch during the period where Zilla was pushing for mine. Also, this isn't relevant. Does it matter what caused me to look through Zilla's posts? Maybe I decide to look through her posts because her avatar is flashy and attracts my attention, and then I realize that I think she is scum. Is my case invalidated because of that reason?

[Goatrevolt]

If it's my reasons for voting Goat, he never answered for:

Being unaccountable.

I answered this point numerous times. You're accusing me of being unaccountable for not giving you a summary of the game, and later not providing my stance on Panzer. A summary has nothing to do with accountability, because I'm accountable for the stances I've taken summary or not. I wanted you to go back and read the game before having people influence you. The panzer point I'll address in a moment.

Trying to shut down information sources.

I answered this many times as well. I can't shut down information that is already in the thread. You wanted a summary of the game (in essence, people telling you what has happened thus far). A summary contains no new information, it's just a restating of old information. I can't shut down an information source when there is no new information.

Having to fight tooth and nail to get him to give his current account of players

. This is wrong. You asked me for my stance on MacavityLock. I told you to read the thread, where my stance was stated multiple times. You asked me for a current stance on Panzer. I linked to 295, which contained a current stance on Panzer. You then harassed me about it for a long time, so I finally wrote out my stance on Panzer. You commented "Finally Goat gives his stance" but yet didn't even realize that the stance I had written out was almost word for word a direct copy of the stance I had given you in 295. To me, that suggests you didn't even look at 295.

his hem-haw stance on Panzer (suddenly must be town because I'm scum, and because Panzer is voting for me).

I gave reasons for that. Want to dispute those reasons, or are you just going to attack stances without any underlying rationale for why they aren't right? And originally I had him as a scum buddy to you. That opinion has changed based on new information.

his chainsaw defense of both Panzer and Mykonian.

I don't think you understand what a chainsaw defense is. A chainsaw defense is when some attacks a player, and rather than defend that player, I instead discredit the attacker. Where have I chainsawed Panzer? Panzer's attacker was GIEFF. I have not discredited his Panzer case or thrown suspicion on him at all. You were attacking Mykonian. I defended specifically against your case on Mykonian (a defense you did not bother to address other than to toss suspicion on me for "chainsawing"), and I wasn't even attacking you at that point in the game. That's not a chainsaw defense...that's a defense-defense. What about my defense of Mykonian is a "chainsaw defense" while your defense of BB was not? What was scummy about my defense of Mykonian? You never addressed my points or my reasoning for thinking your case was poor, you merely dismissed it as scummy without underlying rationale.

[Goatrevolt]

Just because you wrote 10k words - with an incredibly high amount repetition - doesn't mean you aren't lazy in your scumhunting. From your last overview, all independent analysis of players had mostly town verdict. And all scum verdicts were associated to Zilla's alignment, and in a very vague fashion nonetheless. That just sucks: scumlinking is the most despicable form of scumhunting day 1, using them as more than possible indication is at best sloppy, at worst scummy.

You don't get it. My pressure on Zilla is scum hunting. I have "scum hunted" her to the point where I am convinced she is scum. You're now accusing me of being lazy because I have only focused my

recent

attacks on one player, who is ridiculously likely to be scum. That's not being lazy at all. That's being focused/singleminded, etc. and nobody has given me any indication why that is scummy. There's no good reason why I should ignore Zilla and consider other people to be scum, when I don't think they are anywhere close to Zilla's level.

Also, I don't know what your accusation about "mostly town" verdicts and other nonsense comes from. I was exceptionally clear in my post where I stood on everyone. Out of the 10 players besides me and Zilla, I listed 6 as town, 2 as "maybe" and 2 as scum. I didn't provide reasoning, but I wasn't vague. All of my reads are influenced by my stance on Zilla. They are not all based entirely on that. For example, I gave reasoning for why I believed Mykonian to be town completely independent of Zilla.

Scumlinking is not my form of scumhunting. You know this. My case on Zilla has absolutely nothing to do with scumlinking, so your accusation that I am using it as my method of scumhunting is wrong. I'm using logic/reasoning/evidence as my method of scumhunting. Links to Zilla is what comes next.

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

Yes, and that's one step too early which means that your one step means exactly nothing.

I never argued it meant anything right now. Do you see me pushing a lynch on Dour, or Qwints? No. I'm pushing a lynch on Zilla, who I think is scum.

Goat: I have read your case against Zilla, I think it sucks. The margin of errors in the possible meaning she could have intended with words like "hardly" and "outstanding" are such that your accusation of her lying reposes on very shaky grounds.

I think the meaning of "outstanding" is pretty freaking clear. Up to that point in the game, GIEFF had the single most outstanding case of the game with his case on Panzer. Zilla even noted that it was

possible

to attack GIEFF over tunneling on Panzer. It's not possible to attack someone over tunneling unless they have an outstanding stance. So when Zilla says that GIEFF didn't have any outstanding stances besides Dour, she's lying.

-----

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.

[Goatrevolt]

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm going to start working towards accomplishing a lynch for today.

Here is the current vote count to my understanding:

Zilla (4/7): BB, Goat, Panzer, Dourgrim
Panzer (3/7): Ting, Subgenius, Spring
Birthday (2/7): Qwints, GIEFF
GIEFF (1/7): Mykonian
Mykonian (1/7): Zilla

Not Voting: Militant

I doubt anyone who's name is not Zilla/Panzer/Birthday is going to get lynched today. With that being said, I'm interested in specific stances on those 3.

Militant

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Mykonian

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Zilla

: Out of BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 2? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Ting

: I don't know why you are voting for Panzer. Are you still interested in his lynch? Why or why not? Out of BB/Zilla/Panzer, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer?

Qwints

: Your vote is on BB, but it's been a long time since you placed it, and I don't recall you discussing it much since then. Are you still interested in lynching him? Are you willing to lynch Panzer/Zilla? If so, in what order? Additionally, what happened to your original statement that Panzer/Mykonian were your top two?

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?

Spring

: You stated that you are unwilling to lynch Zilla. Would you be willing to lynch either BB or Panzer in that case? If so, do you have a preference?

BB

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you also willing to lynch Panzer?

Panzer

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you willing to lynch BB?

Dourgrim

: Stance made clear in Post 786.

Mod:

Are we getting a replacement for subgenius?

[Goatrevolt]

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?

At that point, yes. My series of questions to Panzer were "I think he is a Zilla scum buddy, so I'm probing him" questions. He stated strong support of the Zilla wagon, but wasn't on it. I wanted to see what he had to say about that.

As for the apology, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not reading it as a significant tell either way, really.

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.

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. I have a hard time explaining exactly what that factor is, but it was enough to keep me off his wagon. At that point, BB/Macavity were 1 and 2, and Panzer was 3. From that point on, even though I thought Zilla was town, Panzer's attack on Zilla also seemed pro-town. He was voting on and off as a result of new evidence. His original vote on Birthday was what caused me to go back and look at Birthday myself, and I agreed with his point. Panzer seemed to be taking solid stances and making legitimate points. Panzer was still around number 3 for me, but I didn't really consider him a lynch option anymore. I was far more interested in Birthday.

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. Panzer's on/off of the Zilla wagon seemed reasonable. The reason I saw him as a scum buddy was because of Zilla's actions. She had Panzer as a consistently scummy target, but was interested instead in attacking me and Mykonian, and partially because we were "defending" Panzer. I found it odd that she was so hardcore about people defending Panzer but she never really bothered to attack him herself. It kind of struck me how scum will see someone sticking up for their scum buddy and will want to point out how anti-town they are for sticking up for scum, but yet they can't reveal they know that player is scum.

Then there was post 614, my questioning of Panzer to see where he stood on Zilla. I didn't really learn anything from that. He responded basically how I expected him to respond. I changed my mind on him because of his "I won't participate until Zilla claims" stance. First of all, I see it as less likely that scum take that stance in the first place, because it is a really easy for people to put suspicion on them for that move. Panzer as scum would be tossing himself in the spotlight there for little real gain. Secondly, scum don't really want to lynch their scum buddies. If Zilla is scum, as I believe, then Panzer is going above and beyond the scumbuddy call to bus. He'd be looking for opportunities to get off the wagon, not making ultimatums that we either lynch his scum buddy or he stops contributing.

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. His stances on BB/Zilla have been reasonable, and have come on and off based on changes in evidence. I'm not seeing any hidden motives behind it. I actually view his "Not participating until Zilla claims" bit as a less likely move for scum to make. And then there is my opinion on Zilla.

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).

I can only think of two times this game that I answered prior to letting the player answer themselves. One was that time with Panzer, and the other was me defending against Zilla's initial case on Mykonian.

I let Panzer answer first for your recent attack before giving my opinion, and I let Mykonian answer recent attacks first, before jumping in to say that you were attacking him for bringing up LAL, when he was just answering Zilla's question about it.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

That's ignoring C: my opinion of Zilla affecting my read of Panzer, and D: My "too scummy fallacy" as you choose to put it.

I have A (logic inconsistencies vs. gut). Then there is B (scum team). Then I discount B, creating C (not scum team). Then there is D (his Zilla-claim stance not being the percentage play for scum).

So it's not just A. It's A, C, D.

Regarding the "too scummy" fallacy, that's not what I'm arguing at all. From my perspective, Panzer's aggression towards Zilla is not scummy. I'm arguing that his play put him needlessly in the spotlight, and thus is something scum are less likely to do than town. Scum don't want attention. Panzer doing that is bound to bring him attention (as it has).

[Goatrevolt]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

I can never "prove" anything. All I have is what I think makes sense. And I don't think your claim that GIEFF had no outstanding stances besides Dour, and that's why you viewed him as town makes sense. You noted his stances on BB and Panzer in previous posts. Therefore it stands to reason you knew he had more stances that just Dour. I think you were lying about the reasons you had GIEFF and Dour as top townies.

I point this out at the top of Post 769. Any response?

I also feel that you are dishonest in your suspicions and voting. I don't think your vote changes have reflected periods where your suspicions legitimately changed as much as periods where Zilla needed a different vote. Why did you recently unvote me? You just finished making a huge post about how I "misrepresented" you.

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

They are scummy in terms of a "here's a list of 24 common scum tells, it's on that list" mentality. I don't think it's scummy in that I don't think it makes him more likely to be scum, regardless of your alignment. Admittedly, it's not a huge point, but I simply think it's less likely he makes that play as scum than town.

-------

I just read through all of Mykonian's posts. I really don't think he is scum.

[Goatrevolt]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

Yes, and yes.

By that second yes, I'm not saying Mykonian has really put out a lot of pressure in order to catch scum, but I do feel like he has been legitimately trying to figure out people's alignments.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, 2 things:

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

First, this doesn't seem to jive with your play this game.

Explain to me:

Your vote change to BB from me back in post 544. What, specifically, at that point in time made you think BB was a better place for your vote to be?

Your recent unvote on me. What specifically made you feel your vote was no longer worthwhile being on me. You had just finished a monster of a post, where you accuse me repeatedly of misrepresentations and strawmanning a strawman definition, etc. What about that caused you to unvote me?

Secondly, I want you to explain this: Here you mention that Birthday-scum would partially absolve me of being scum. Yet, here you say you suspect 2 or 3 of Me, GIEFF, Birthday to be scum. What was the difference. Why at one point am I not likely to be a scum buddy to Birthday, but at another point I can be one? Furthermore, in that 2nd post, you note that Birthday is your most likely to be scum out of us 3, yet in the first linked post you state that Birthday wasn't your top suspect, I was. Those are two contradictory ideas.

[Goatrevolt]

I still strongly feel that Zilla is scum and will maintain my vote there.

Zilla - 54%

Strongly is an arbitrary 54%?

-------

I've read through all of Zilla + Birthday's posts. Doing so actually lessened my suspicion of Zilla by a decent factor. A lot of the alleged misrepresentations seem less malicious in intent. Example: I linked to post 295, she attacked post 240. Since post 295 was an extension of Post 240, I can somewhat understand that, however, Post 295 also contained a stand-alone stance on Panzer, which is what she asked for. I gave her an answer to her question, but she didn't look at it closely enough to realize it. Then she kept attacking me on that point, which was annoying, frustrating, and felt like she was deliberately nitpicking minutae to deflect from Birthday, who she didn't really have a clear opinion on. It annoyed me, because I kept pointing to 295, and she kept saying that it wasn't valid, but she clearly had not read 295, or she would realize that there was a stand-alone stance on Panzer in that post. After reading through all of her posts, she consistently misses that point, which seems more of a misunderstanding based on her not actually reading the post I linked and less of a direct strawman.

Secondly, she continues to say that my example scenario about lynching for information is scummy because I assume Panzer is town. Despite me saying this over and over again, I still don't think she understands

that was the entire point

. Lynching for information implies that it doesn't matter if someone is town, so long as you get information. I was extracting that, and saying "so, let's assume we've lynched Panzer and he is town, then what? What have we learned?" I'm not saying I think or know Panzer is town. I merely wanted to debunk that theory. Her argument: "You're taking the possibility Panzer is scum out of the argument. That's because you must know he's town." My argument: "You don't seem to realize that is the entire point of my post."

Quite frequently, I get the picture that Zilla simply doesn't understand what I'm saying (or I don't understand her points) and that's what the problem is.

Regardless, I'm still suspicious of aspects of her play. Her vote swapping, for example, still doesn't seem to coincide at natural points. They still look to me like attempts to change the subject away from her. I still don't believe her explanation about GIEFF being town. I still think she was dishonest in her initial push on me (presenting points that weren't really her real reason for voting me). I can't remember if I actually asked Zilla this question or not, but do people routinely accuse you of misrepresenting them in games?

Reading through Birthday, I don't have a whole lot to add. I think the reason I was pushing for his lynch earlier is still valid. I still don't know why he bothered to try to defend his vote on Panzer if he was going to later on just agree that it was a scummy wagon vote. Why first lie, then later go for the truth? I think spring makes a decent point about him dropping the "note to self" gig, although that's more of a minor point. Since his defense of himself (or lack thereof) and Zilla vote, I haven't had many complaints. The only thing I'm all that skeptical of is the % thing above. Also, I will note that Birthday really doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the game. I'm not sure if that's a meaningful tell or not.

-------

Ting/Qwints I find scummy. Not really for the lurking aspect, as it's a long, fast-paced game with giant posts, but more for the lack of solid stances. Ting has made good points and comments, but has made little in terms of actual stances (actually, subgenius fits that category as well). I want Qwints to further explain his vote on Birthday, and explain what happened to his original Panzer/Mykonian suspicion.

[Goatrevolt]

Goatrevolt: in three sentences or less, what is your stance on GIEFF? I'm genuinely curious here, and not because of my prior stance on him.

I think he's been fairly pro-town thus far. I disagree with some of the points he has pressed, but he appears to be genuinely trying to find scum. My only solid point of suspicion is based on his voting record.

---------

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?

Why were you still voting for Panzer after BB admitted to lying about his reasons for voting for Panzer? Why was Panzer a better target than BB at that point?

[Goatrevolt]

Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.

What is your reasoning behind these shifts?

[Goatrevolt]

On GIEFF/Dourgrim being town, you're either not seeing what I'm saying or choosing to ignore it.

I see what you're saying, I'm not ignoring it, I just have a hard time buying it.

I didn't count his opinion on Panzer

Why not? GIEFF v. Panzer was the predominant case in the game at that point. GIEFF/Dour may have been the most discussion dominating, but neither of them were really "sold" on the other as scum, and they were kind of just arguing without actually pushing the envelop.

Panzer had the biggest wagon, which GIEFF was pushing. There was GIEFF v. Mykonian, which branched off as a result of GIEFF's push on Panzer, etc. Why was the progenitor of the biggest wagon in the game not "count" worthy?

I didn't even know he had anything on BB.

Post 381. You questioned him on how his stance on BB related to his opinion on Panzer. Apparently, that stance on Panzer doesn't count, and you didn't know he had one on BB, though.

I said he HAD been suspicious of Panzer, but he dropped that and instead focused on Dour, and Dour focused on him. I said this already.

You may have said this already, but it's not true. He didn't "drop" his Panzer suspicion at all.

I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."

And then you could lynch me for lying or distorting the truth or what have you. Do you seriously think I can get away with claiming it was "an old opinion" when I directly linked to that post in response to a question asking me point blank: "what is your

current

stance on Panzer?" And then, when you asked me 3 more times, I responded "That opinion is my current opinion." If I could somehow get away with saying "it was an old opinion" after all that, then I must have godlike manipulation powers.

I don't buy this explanation, at all. You know this is weak. When I asked for your current stance on Birthday, you exclaimed it was obvious and linked back to an earlier post. Why the double standard?

Quite frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read 295. If you had actually looked through that post to see my opinion on Panzer, you would have found it. My guess is that you glanced at the post, saw that it was the one where I had elaborated on Post 240, and then just went straight to 240 without actually reading it.

Explain to me:

Your vote change to BB from me back in post 544. What, specifically, at that point in time made you think BB was a better place for your vote to be?

Partially because he was viewed as mutually exclusive scum at the time (I didn't see your attack as a bus job at that point) with an also high-chance of being scum, and I didn't like that contradiction existing. If it turned out that he was scum (which, independent of his connection to someone else I felt was scum), I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on you. The other part was because it seemed like nobody was seeing my points, so my vote wasn't accomplishing anything being the solitary vote on you. I still felt you were scummy, and when you drop Birthday at L-2, something looks fishy.

You are selectively looking at half the picture. You keep ignoring the fact that I had just finished a giant case on you. You keep saying stuff like "I unvoted Birthday because Zilla voted him" which completely ignores the mammoth posts where I expressed my suspicion of you.

Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.

I'm not a lynch candidate because I haven't been scummy. You've slung a lot of mud at me, but none of your points really carry any weight, because they aren't based on truth. You may try to argue that I haven't been accountable because I gave a link to an opinion rather than retyping out said opinion, but the rest of the game can easily identify that it's a weak argument.

The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.

Again, see above. I was sincere about wanting to lynch Birthday. If I wasn't sincere about a desire to lynch Birthday, I would not push the case nearly as hard as I did. That makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is trying to bus a scumbuddy.

Later, I consider exactly

why

you were pursuing him all day and suddenly drop him when I climb on, and I come to the conclusion that you honestly did intend to lynch him until I jumped on, which made me think you got nervous when I mentioned that lynching Birthday would give more information about you. If Birthday was scum, that'd partially absolve you because, if I was right in thinking your intention to lynch him was sincere, you would be doing that from a town mindset. I could have been wrong about that though, hence "partially," since nothing is certain. If he was town and you were sincere about lynching him, that really makes me think you were knowing scum that jumped ship when you realized your accountability. If he was town and you weren't sincere, heck, no matter his alignment and you're not sincere, you're obviously pulling something scummy.

Two problems here:

1. This starts from the assumption that I am scum. You are trying to justify how my actions make sense in this scenario, but you are starting from the initial condition that I am scum.

2. As I said before, you ignore half the picture. You're trying to fit how my actions make sense based on Birthday alone. You ignore that I dropped Birthday and went to you because of a giant case I just outlined against you.

[Goatrevolt]

I didn't count his opinion on Panzer

Why not? GIEFF v. Panzer was the predominant case in the game at that point. GIEFF/Dour may have been the most discussion dominating, but neither of them were really "sold" on the other as scum, and they were kind of just arguing without actually pushing the envelop.

Panzer had the biggest wagon, which GIEFF was pushing. There was GIEFF v. Mykonian, which branched off as a result of GIEFF's push on Panzer, etc. Why was the progenitor of the biggest wagon in the game not "count" worthy?

Lulz cuz I'm scum, only town know exactly where everyone stands at any point. Look at GIEFF's posts, about 1/5 "push" Panzer, the rest are spent arguing with Dour.

Oh, I keep forgetting to note that you're "Extending" your case with this argument. That shouldn't invalidate this argument, but it should definately invalidate both your "case extention" argument (interstingly, one I refuted already, so you dropped and instead extended your case with this one) and your hypocrisy argument.

For the record, I do not believe "extending a case" in and of itself is scummy. New information presents itself, which changes things.

However, on me, you were extending your case without anything new happening. You tossed a wall of points at me, I defended, and then you just tossed a new wall at me. That's vastly different than my case on you now being different than it was 10+ pages ago based on new evidence.

I didn't even know he had anything on BB.

Post 381. You questioned him on how his stance on BB related to his opinion on Panzer. Apparently, that stance on Panzer doesn't count, and you didn't know he had one on BB, though.

That was your stance on BB that he agreed with, not his own. This is all completely irrelevant to why I thought GIEFF and Dour were protown. To borrow a phrase from mykonian, you're "assuming perfect play." Just because GIEFF was pushing Panzer and echoed your thoughts on Birthday doesn't mean I couldn't list him as protown with Dour, and the fact that they were locked in struggle is not the sole condition of being town, like you're trying to sell it as. Their comments in general seemed to be from a pro-town standpont; their questions, both to each other, and in GIEFF's case, to his suspects, were genuine, and they both have a pro-town feel to them. Asking why I think they are protown, you're going to get me trying to logically rationalize why I think they are protown.

Why didn't you state this then. This is not at all what you said. You said it was because he had no outstanding stances. If the above is to be believed, it was because of your gut call on him being genuine with his attacks on Dour, etc.

This is the same kind of dishonesty you exhibit throughout the game. You toss a ton of points at me, but only 1 of them is the actual reason for your vote (unaccountable). Now you say you think GIEFF was town because his comments were pro-town, he felt genuine, etc. but before it was simply because he was locked in a struggle with Dour and had no outstanding stances.

It's so easy to just link to an earlier opinion. If I answered all your accusations only with links to my earlier arguments where I already answered them, you wouldn't have a case at all on me. You are using contradictions as your method of scumhunting. Linking to old posts without providing current opinions is the easy way to avoid creating those contradictions.

I use a variety of methods to catch scum. Contradictions are a big thing for me because scum much more frequently contradict themselves than town do, and townies can generally explain their contradictions. Furthermore, you are really stretching here and you continue to do so.

Linking to old posts doesn't do squat towards avoiding creating contradictions. The best way for scum to avoid contradictions is to say less. Me linking to an opinion that is

exactly the same as my current opinion

rather than simply retyping it out isn't some elaborate scheme for me to avoid contradicting myself.

Pairing these two things, I can understand why you'd backlink instead of give your opinion as scum; you're trying to use possible contradictions to "hunt" scum, so you wouldn't want to leave those possible contradictions yourself, lest you be caught.

Umm...no. This is the same BS point you tried to attack me with regarding giving a summary. You said that I was afraid to give a summary because I was paranoid about having people catch me as scum or some other crap rationale.

Do I look like the player who is afraid to post what I think? Do you think if I was worried about getting caught with contradictions or paranoid about having people "pick up on me as scum" I would post 130 times in 36 pages?

I already answered this. Now I get to flip shit for linking to my megapost. I should also note here that I'm totally fine with backlinking arguments

that are still valid

. It's opinions that matter, because those change due to circumstances, while arguments are far more static.

My opinion on Panzer was still valid. I said the exact same thing later on when I finally caved to your ridiculousness and typed it out. You're just saying my opinion on Panzer wasn't valid over some arbitrary assignment of what is valid or not. You ask me for a current opinion, and I link to an opinion and say "that is my current opinion." What about that is invalid?

I read it and they weren't your current opinions. I answered this already, and very recently.

You clearly have an inability to read anything I say. That was my current opinion. I don't see what is so freaking hard to understand about that. You didn't even address the opinion I had in that post, so how the hell would you know if it was "current" or not.

In fact, I first address it here:

I didn't ask for a link. I asked what you currently thought of panzer. I want an original statement from you right now that you can be held accountable for on where you stand on Panzer. The only reason I can think that you continue to link to your "both sides of the fence" stance that I FOS'd you for is that you know it will be politically risky to say anything definite about panzer.

You FOSed me for POST 240. I linked to POST 295! You have serious comprehension problems.

You are selectively looking at half the picture. You keep ignoring the fact that I had just finished a giant case on you. You keep saying stuff like "I unvoted Birthday because Zilla voted him" which completely ignores the mammoth posts where I expressed my suspicion of you.

Do you seriously suspect town to be that unassuming that they don't think scum can manufacture this? Moreover, I still assert your entire case on me is deliberately fabricated to begin with, not to mention all the "extentions" you've put onto it. This is a WIFOM defense at best, and I posit that it's scummy to resort to a WIFOM defense because it means you thought of how to construe it as town when you did it.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. This has absolutely nothing to do with WIFOM. You kept attacking me by saying "Goat had no reason to unvote Birthday, he only did it because I voted him" when you are IGNORING my case on you and how that was relevant in my vote on you. This isn't a matter of whether or not my case was good, this is a simple matter of you ignoring facts to support your theories.

You may try to argue that I haven't been accountable because I gave a link to an opinion rather than retyping out said opinion, but the rest of the game can easily identify that it's a weak argument.

A leading statement and a prompting suggestion, where you're leading the town to believe it is a weak argument and prompting them to "prove their worth" by "easily identifying" it as a weak argument for you, though you offer no proof yourself.

Ooh, on to something here. Do you believe this is scummy?

The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.

Again, see above. I was sincere about wanting to lynch Birthday. If I wasn't sincere about a desire to lynch Birthday, I would not push the case nearly as hard as I did. That makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is trying to bus a scumbuddy.

That is exactly the kind of WIFOM argument scum would want town to buy. If there's any time someone defends themselves by saying "There is no way scum would do this, it's too scummy," it's a WIFOM situation. Scum are capable of doing anything, they can even be the most vocal proponents for lynching their don on day 1. It makes sense from the standpoint that you would do it to gain reputation.

This is preposterous. This isn't WIFOM (almost nothing in mafia is), this is a simple statement of "what is more likely", and this is the exact same argument I used to note how Panzer's pressure on you made it unlikely you were scum buddies together. Scum don't want their buddies to die. Scum occasionally bus their buddies to look good. Scum rarely bus their buddies so hard as to attempt to shut out the possibilities of lynching others. That isn't WIFOM, it's what makes more sense.

1. This starts from the assumption that I am scum. You are trying to justify how my actions make sense in this scenario, but you are starting from the initial condition that I am scum.

How is this different from what you're doing to me? I always hunt scum by taking a player and assuming they are scum and seeing how well that theory holds up to scrutiny and evidence. If I start with the initial condition that you are scum, and the evidence supports it, there's valid reason to assume that theory is right.

I think this is an awful way to play. If you start from the idea that someone is scum, then you can always find a way to justify how their actions could make sense from them being scum. Always. Although, this is fairly revealing about you, as I think a large portion of your attacks on me fall under this umbrella.

Here's why it's bad. Take me unvoting Birthday for example: You can figure out a reason why I would do that as scum. The reasons you gave for example. The problem is that it completely ignores why I would also do that as town, and doesn't take into account which is more likely. It's this chain of progression. "Goat is scum." "Goat unvoted Birthday." "Goat could possibly unvote Birthday as scum for this reason." "Thus Goat is still scum." That ignores other very important questions like "Does Goat unvoting birthday make more sense for him to do as scum or town?" Or "is it also possible Goat unvoted Birthday as town?"

Starting from the assumption someone is scum, I could go through and make a case on every single person in this game, easily.

And no, I start from the assumption people are town, and attempt to show they are scum by showing how their actions do not make sense from the town perspective. The opposite is far easier to do, but has literally no success rate. Showing how someone could possibly be scum, or how their actions possibly fit a scum mindset doesn't actually show how they are likely to be scum. Doing that will lead to a lot of mislynches, Spanish Inquisition style.

2. As I said before, you ignore half the picture.

You're trying to fit how my actions make sense based on Birthday alone.

You ignore that I dropped Birthday and went to you because of a giant case I just outlined against you.

This is the exact same thing as 1, why are you trying to make two separate points that are the same thing? I also don't understand the underlined sentence. I'm investigating the possible motivation for the disengage taking into account a fabricated case and suspicious timing. This is about leaving Birthday when he was at L-2, regardless of his alignment.

No, you never took into account my case on you. The timing is only suspicious if you ignore the facts surrounding it, which is what I'm arguing that you are doing. Rather than assume I'm scum, I want you to assume I'm town for a second. Read through my series of posts during that period and tell me if you can see how I would do that as town. Because here you are starting from the assumption that I am scum, and it is easy to prove anyone is scum if you start from the assumption that they are.

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

I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer

You didn't answer my question. Why did you list Panzer and Mykonian as your most scummy, and then never follow through with it? Why are you now going back to Panzer. And what about his explanation is inadequate?

FoS Qwints

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 do the same. Here's why I asked. When I was answering spring in an earlier post, I caught myself quoting her statements to Zilla, when I read through my post. I realized that I did that for a couple of reasons. First was out of habit, and second because I was frustrated, and I associate frustrated responses to me quoting Zilla .

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?

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

How does zilla-scum make me 50% likely to be scum? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning any suspicions of me, and then this.

Not 50%. 50/50. There is a difference in meaning/connotation. What I was basically saying by that is you have almost no connections with Zilla. If she is scum, I don't have reasons to deem you more likely to be either town or scum based on that.

No, I'm not interested in his lynch. I'll move my vote once I manage to read through everything. If it makes you uncomfortable that my vote is on him, I'll unvote. I'm not particularly interested in either a bb/zilla or panzer lynch. If I had to choose someone from those three, I'd choose panzer. I agree with nearly nothing BB or zilla say, but neither has struck me as extremely scummy.

I'm a bit iffy on your position on Zilla. Here you say she hasn't struck you as extremely scummy, but earlier, you say she's not on your "most certainly town" list. What does that exactly mean?

--------

Unvote

I'm actually not sure about Zilla anymore, at least not enough to want to lynch her, which is quite the turnaround. From bits and pieces of what she's said I've been able to get a picture of her playstyle, which actually explains a lot of what I've perceived as scummy about her play.

For example, I was suspicious of her "trying to prove I was scum or pin me as scum rather than actually determine whether or not I was scum." I think that makes more sense after she explained that she starts from the assumption someone is scum and works backward. If she starts from the assumption that I am scum, it's easy to fit a theory of how I could be scum. Everything I do you can find a scum motivation for, but ignore possible town motivations.

I still think she is dishonest. I don't believe she read post 295, or she would have seen my opinion on Panzer and not erroneously attacked post 240. She was dishonest about why she had GIEFF as her top townie. I can believe the reasons she gave in her recent post, but that's not what she said originally. I just don't know if this means Zilla is scum, or this is something that's reflective of her playstyle in general.

[Goatrevolt]

Meh, I thought farside had replaced in. False joy.

Yeah, me too. I was excited over what that was going to mean for this game.

I'm currently up to lynch BB, Panzer, for previously cited reasons.

Plus qwint, militant and subgenius for lurking.

No order of preference.

This again? I highly doubt you have no order of preference. Everyone has someone they would prefer to see gone (whether it's scum with a townie they want out, or town with the person they think most likely to be scum). I want to see an order of preference. Why does militant's lurking make him an equally good lynch as BB? Among all 3 lurkers, they all have defining characteristics of their play. Are you truly unable to distinguish between them? I doubt it.

@Goat, something's puzzling me. You seem awfully nice to me this game. Saying stuff like "you know this", "spring can testify to it" when it comes to your playstyle, plus the whole not wanting to lynch me for lurking. This is in stark contrast compared to the other game we share, and I think it looks awfully like you buddying up or, more nefariously, trying to manipulate me over your meta. I'll say this here, you do seem consistent with the town meta I have seen from you (1 game), but I don't like the fact that you are bringing it up constantly in the conversation.

I expected you to bring up something like this.

You are one of the people I think most likely to be town right now. I'm not trying to buddy up in order to garner your support, I simply think you are town. I don't want to lynch someone I think is town, regardless of whether or not they are lurking. I respect your play enough to want to have you come back to the game rather than replace out and us get a variable factor. The reason I've brought up my meta is Zilla kept attacking me for aspects of my play that she said makes me likely to be scum, but are actually just things I do every game. My style of defending myself, for example. The reason I noted you, is because you played in a recent game with me, and you attacked me for the exact same thing Zilla did, and can testify that it is something I do as town.

It wasn't an attempt to buddy, it was me defending myself.

Now, your 'working toward a lynch' is all well and good, but who exactly are you willing to lynch beside Zilla, and why?

Previously, nobody. Now I'm not sure Zilla is scum anymore, so I need to evaluate. Right now, I'd say BB and Qwints would be my top two choices. I'm leaning more towards Qwints than BB right now, but I want to think about it a little bit before committing.

[Goatrevolt]

ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.

If your opinion of my post is "small arguments with Zilla that make up my case against her" then you didn't read it. I unvoted. Do you have no reaction to that?

and Goat, why a FoS in this time of the day?

At that point, I was still voting Zilla. I decided to unvote at the end of my post, and didn't go back and do anything about my FoS. I've just had a drastic change of opinion on Zilla, and I want to think about the game a bit more before committing to a vote right now. So I'm fine with leaving the FoS at this moment.

and come on, do you really expect someone to find the "dourscum" mistake. You just read over it, looking for obvious logical/grammatical mistakes.

No, I can understand how it would be missed. I wanted to ask GIEFF about it anyway and see what he had to say about it. I think his answer was fine, and satisfies my inquiry.

[Goatrevolt]

BTW Goat, how can you play with such win loss ratings as scum? Why would you show them? I should have asked you earlier, but doesn't that get you lynched sometimes?

It hasn't. I show them because I love statistics.

I've had people who have played in previous games where I was scum attack me in the next game based on a "too townie fallacy." I've never had it actually garner any support.

[Goatrevolt]

Spring: I thought you were town back when I made those comments because I was convinced Zilla was scum, and your Dejkha pressure didn't seem like busing. Since you stopped lurking, I've found your posting to be fairly pro-town. I've disagreed with some of it, but little of it has struck me as scummy. My only problem is your "lack of preferences" with willingness to lynch half the game, but that seems to be a common theme with you. Also, I will say that your play this game is not at all similar to your play in our last game. I can't pinpoint the difference, but you just don't seem scummy here, whereas you always seemed scummy to me in that game. I trust my read on you for now.

My top 3 are Qwints/BB/Zilla. Currently, I'd go for a lynch in that order, but I want to hear more content from qwints (an answer to the repeated question would be nice) before really committing there.

[Goatrevolt]

Qwints:

Here is a serious of questions I want you to answer.

In your first content post you list Panzer and Mykonian as your top two suspects and do not mention BB. In your very next post you vote for Birthday and do not mention Panzer or Mykonian at all. Why is this?

What was Gieff and I looking for?

If you Didn't agree with Zilla's wagon, then why did you FoS her and ask her to claim?

If the Panzer vote was partially based on a deadline problem, then why didn't you mention it when you placed the vote?

Finally, you voted Panzer for being consistently scummy, but didn't explain how he had been consistently scummy. What are your reasons for thinking Panzer is scum?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

Why?

[Goatrevolt]

Because you can't eat chocolate when you're dead.

I'd lynch Panzer before I lynched Mykonian.

[Goatrevolt]

That was a relative statement. Panzer is scummier than mykonian is not the same as Panzer is scummier than he was before.

I'm going to go ahead and put Panzer in my top 3 and take Zilla out, though. That's more of Zilla looking less suspicious than Panzer looking more, though.

[Goatrevolt]

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?

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.

February 14th was his last post. By almost 72 hours, do you actually mean over 300 hours? I'm pointing this out because I looks like you are implying that they are going inactive in the face of the looming deadline, when in reality sub has already been inactive for a long time. I'm also not sure how you could really make this mistake. Where you unaware subgenius was missing for like 2 weeks, or that he got replaced?

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Beyond Birthday

Qwints answers to me questions were kind of meh, but I don't think he's the lynch for today at any rate.

Birthday then Panzer is my preference. I'm retracting my stance on Panzer a bit, because his recent posts have lost that "genuine" feel I got to some of his earlier ones. The EBWODP SPIN DOCTOR post, for example, just seems fake. If Panzer was truly that outraged by the spin doctoring, he would have displayed that outrage in his first post. Coming in with a second post to display his outrage makes it seem fake.

Before anyone claims, I'd like to see a top 3 list from every player in this game, including order of preference. If we decide we want to lynch Birthday, for instance, Panzer should not have to claim. Likewise for the opposite.

[Goatrevolt]

At this point, Panzer should claim.

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote: Vote:Qwints

YOU DO NOT LYNCH A CLAIMED COP REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

So if scum claim cop they win the game? This is faulty.

I'm not the cop. I will however, review the posts of one Panzer Jager to investigate his claim. If his claim of cop doesn't fit with his play thus far (as in, if he's said things or implied things that don't make sense if he is a cop) then I say we lynch him. If not, then I suggest we move on to BB.

[Goatrevolt]

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

Worried about being forced to claim. +cop

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

FoSing GIEFF on the notion that he is fishing for your role. +cop

I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum.

Having to go back and check your role. -cop (power roles typically remember they are a power role).

You do get info if I'm town. Not just if I'm scum. I actually think you get more info if I'm town.

Getting info if he's town. +cop

I believe I've been quite explicit that I wanted the day to end and us to lynch someone. I didn't specify that It didn't need to be me. Of course I prefer it but I've gone to great lengths to get people to calm down and stop convoluting the information so far this day. My lynch giving us info is just BS.

Here he's saying that he didn't explicitly point out that the lynch needed to be someone other than him. -cop...but not a huge selling point.

Series of posts where Panzer pushes for the end of the day

Accelerating the game to the night phase. +cop...but not a huge selling point.

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

I'm not seeing a reason to disbelieve this claim. GIEFF, if you have information, I suggest you come out with it immediately, since today is the 7th, and I believe the deadline is tomorrow, the 8th.

While it's possible that Panzer is scum lying, his early interaction with GIEFF would point to him actually being the cop. I think lynching him today, barring a counterclaim or good information from GIEFF, would be a poor move.

[Goatrevolt]

Accusing someone of rolefishing, or that they are only pushing your wagon to get a claim out of you fits with the mindset of a power role more than that of scum. Saying "scum could act the same way when put to the test" is meaningless. You could say that about literally every aspect of this game, but quite frankly some actions make more sense from town than scum. Just because it's possible some action could be done by scum doesn't actually mean that it is likely.

Accelerating the game to the night phase isn't really a scum tell, just like stretching the day really long isn't a town tell. If someone is fit to be lynched, then lynch them. What I was saying with that point is that Panzer pushing to go to night fits with the idea that he is a cop who wants it to be night so he can use his role. Yes, it could also fit with scum who want to make a kill, but scum are usually fairly self-conscious about demanding for the end of the day, as doing so is generally frowned upon as scummy.

------

At any rate, I think cop is a plausible claim for Panzer. I'm not saying that he is the cop for sure, but just that his play has been consistent with the play of a cop and thus he should not be lynched for that.

I think lynching him today is a bad idea. His claim fits, and if he is town, the information he can generate for us would be very useful. Let's say we decide we are going to wait and lynch him day 3, no matter what. I'm not saying that is the best way to play it, but let's just assume we decide that. If he is scum, it sucks to wait 2 days to lynch scum, but at least we are still lynching scum eventually. If he is town, then he will either be shot by scum for being a cop, or he will be produce two results for us that we will know to be truthful. The risks of lynching a day 1 claimed cop who's claim makes sense on his play are not worth the potential benefit if he is actually scum.

[Goatrevolt]

A thought: A counterclaim is not necessarily damning. It depends on who does it and the circumstances surrounding it. Do NOT hammer Panzer immediately if there is a counterclaim.

[Goatrevolt]

I agree with everything below your dash-line in your big post, Goat, but you're trying to call the result of a WIFOM with the rushing to night logic. You're saying that it can't be a scumtell because it's obviously a scumtell. That's not sound reasoning.

No. I'm saying it's not a scum tell because I don't think scum are likely to do it. Not wanting to stretch out the day is not scummy, it's just something that people perceive as scummy, thus scum generally avoid it. Granted, it's not a huge tell, but there it is.

[Goatrevolt]

I agree with GIEFF about the lackadaisical point. I'm having a really hard time reading Panzer, because some of his posts strike me as genuine, but then there are others that strike me as faked emotional bursts. The EBWOP SPIN DOCTOR post, for example, just struck me as a completely faked emotional response, considering it wasn't truly emotional, or it would have been his immediate response.

When I said a counterclaim wouldn't necessarily be damning, I was basically saying that if BB counterclaimed him, I would lean towards lynching BB, because BB was the next in line after Panzer, and might counterclaim to force a mislynch over the alternative of him getting lynched.

By that same token, a lack of counterclaim is not necessarily a statement that Panzer is town. It's possible he's scum and there is no town cop. Based on the meta on this site, I'd argue that there isn't a cop in this game strictly because people are moving away from using cops. I'd hate to try to game the mod like that though.

-------

Regarding Panzer...I just don't know. I'm starting to swing towards thinking he is scum fake claiming. I went back through and looked at his posts, and based on that I can see signs of him possibly being the cop. However, something just feels off about it. I almost feel like he is too calm now, and was too calm back on page 7-10 when he was at L-2.

Unvote

I'd rather lynch Qwints over BB at this point, but I'm not sure if we should lynch Panzer over Qwints.

[Goatrevolt]

Panzer wouldn't be super lucky as mafia to claim cop and not get countered. Very few games I've played on this site have had a cop. Only 1 out of 10, I think. There was another game where a guy I was hounding as scum claimed cop and I let him get away with it. So maybe I'm just jaded to it, but I don't think a lack of a counterclaim means that Panzer is in the clear.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Qwints

I'm fine with waiting a day to decide on Panzer. I want to note, though, that if I think someone is scum I'm going to want to lynch them regardless of them claiming a power role. If claiming a power role let you off the hook this easy, then all scum would claim power roles.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm fine with carrying through on Qwints. I'm a little disturbed by those who would give Panzer a free pass merely for claiming cop. That can be discussed again tomorrow, though.

[Goatrevolt]

baaaaaaaaaahhhhhh

[Goatrevolt]

Nice job town.

I'm glad Zilla was scum. That's probably the hardest I've latched on to someone, and I apologize to anyone to whom the game became unfun as you had to read post after post of me saying "Why is Zilla not dead yet." Sorry Dour .

I'm surprised GIEFF didn't get NKed at some point. He was pretty obviously town.

Ah...being wrong on Mykonian. My bad .

[Goatrevolt]

And Goat, sorry I de-railed your Zilla-wagon on day one.

How dare you derail my scum-wagon to start another wagon on scum!

[Goatrevolt]

This game brought up something I've noticed here and elsewhere since my return to mafiascum: what's with all the open hostility and just general mean-spiritedness around here nowadays? I know things got a bit heated between GIEFF and myself early in the game, but at no point did I go out of my way to insult GIEFF, and I believe (all spin-doctoring accusations aside) neither did he. Do the rest of you genuinely find that sort of play effective? Do you find it entertaining? Do you think it's reasonable to believe the other players will be equally entertained by it, or is that not a worthwhile factor to you? I'm genuinely curious here.

/agreed. Even between Zilla and myself I don't remember any open hostility or mean-spiritedness. Just wild and crazy accusations of misrepresentation! If there was any, I apologize. Understandably tempers can get riled up but no need to get personal about it.

I think my "obvscum" comment in pre-game did a lot more harm than good.

Actually, I disagree. It got us into discussion pretty well.

[Goatrevolt]

What? Dourwho?

[Goatrevolt]

IMO scumZilla actually played pretty well with a perfectly executed 'OMGUS baiting. I think Goat succeed in the looking town part of dealing with her but

not in the making his case appealing part.

Though that kind of dynamic is a difficult situation to be in and I have never actually seen it executed successfully in favour of town.

I'm not sure what else could have been done in that department. Let no one say I did not try.