Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[GIEFF]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

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

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

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

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


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

[springlullaby]

I never classed djekah as 'too eager', because I don't think it's a valid scumtell in the RSV stage in the first place.

What is odd in my not bringing ting? I didn't see OMGUS in his post.

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.

[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?

[GIEFF]

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

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

[springlullaby]

The use of future tense is confusing, I was refering to the mechanism of the OMGUS rather than the act in itself.

Cf the post I vote him where I explain it better:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 70#1474970

[springlullaby]

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

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

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

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

[springlullaby]

The use of future tense is confusing, I was refering to the mechanism of the OMGUS rather than the act in itself.

Cf the post I vote him where I explain it better:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 70#1474970

This was in response to Goat's 202.

[GIEFF]

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

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

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

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

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

[Beyond_Birthday]

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

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

And additionally, I think Panzer's overreaction to the vote is the scummy part of the whole ordeal, which appears to be Spring's point.

[subgenius]

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

1. Dourgrim votes for SL based on her casting a random vote early in the game despite actual discussion taking place and after her absence had been noted.

2. Dejkha FoS's Dourgrim and mentions that he too has been guilty of light posting, and could be one of Dourgrim's targets based on the criteria the he used to vote SL.

3. SL argues that Dejkha's FoS of Dourgrim is OMGUS because he is responding to Dourgrims vote against SL, which was based on criteria that could equally be applied to either SL or Dejkha. It's sort of an OMGUS once removed.

At least I think this is what SL is saying, she can confirm or deny.

[PJ.]

Wait, SL, so You feel I'm scummy but refuse to put a vote on me? That is pretty damn scummy. Sitting the fence is terrible

I'm keeping my vote on SL

@GIEFF: Yes, I was unwilling to play. I'm currently in over my head on games right now, I have 4 games goign because I overjoined and I'm trying really hard to care in all of them. Once I get in over my head on these things it starts to feel like school and not fun.

@SL: I'm aggressive not an asshole and I think I've stood up to heat rather well., and mostly my play as been shitty due to lack of motivation.

[springlullaby]

Wait, SL, so You feel I'm scummy but refuse to put a vote on me? That is pretty damn scummy. Sitting the fence is terrible

I'm keeping my vote on SL

@GIEFF: Yes, I was unwilling to play. I'm currently in over my head on games right now, I have 4 games goign because I overjoined and I'm trying really hard to care in all of them. Once I get in over my head on these things it starts to feel like school and not fun.

@SL: I'm aggressive not an asshole and I think I've stood up to heat rather well., and mostly my play as been shitty due to lack of motivation.

How is thinking someone being scummy but refusing to vote them scummy?

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

[Dourgrim]

I'm not sure I'm as comfortable with this wagon right now as I was when I put my vote on Panzer. Not sure why, but I'm getting a bad vibe from it. I'm going to try and do a full reread this weekend to see if I can find exactly where things changed.

[springlullaby]

Ebwop: hit submit instead of review.

I don't think I totally buy your answer as to your aggressiveness. As I said most genuinely aggressive town are unapologetic and generally don't bother apologizing for their behaviours as they genuinely think it is helpful. It also has something to do with ego. So no, I don't really like your answer.

As to sustaining heat, aggressive players are generally not shy of letting things escalate, instead of trying to appease people or offer excuses like you seem to be doing.

[ting =)]

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

@GIEFF.
My vote was page 2 serious. It wasn't serious enough that I would have carried the vote to a lynch based on what I had at the time, but it was a valid enough reason for a vote at page 2.


-----

Panzer and Myko.

I'm lumping my thoughts of these two together since a lot of the discussion they've joined in were related to each other. I'm not trying to draw a connection, it's just easier to lump them both together since they've had similar actions. Panzer's and Myko's initial votes and backtracks read like genuine mistakes to me. Myko's defense of Panzer also seems genuine. I haven't made up my mind yet about whether I think Panzer's latest 'slip' is really a scum slip or just an innocent mistake. The whole case on him about the slip hinges on the fact that he used the word

'townie.'

I'm not sure yet if it means anything, but I agree with myko that it seems rather blown out of proportion. The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

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

At the moment, myko's still holding his random vote on GIEFF. Do you mean to keep it myko, or is it still just a random vote?

-----

Dourgrim and GIEFF.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's

lack of a random vote

till well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

-----

Springlullaby.

Her initial attack on Dejkha read like she just didn't want to join into the already existing wagons on the others and so looked for a reason to vote someone else. There was little reason for an attack on djekha, and there were easily more suspicious looking targets. Besides, I don't think there was anything wrong at all with Dejkha's post.

Her original FoS:

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all.

This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

FoS: Dourgrim because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum

for things with obvious explanations.

For context, Dourgrim's FoS of you:

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote

(or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation)

after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting,

despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

[u/]

FoS: springlullaby

Dourgrim FoS'd you because you random voted when he felt there was already significant discussion present to make a random vote moot. This (to him) made you look suspicious.
Dejkha's main point was that Dour was overreacting and reading way too much into what was merely a random vote. I think that was a valid observation.

They both cleared it up and elaborated as much in Dejkha's post number 2.

-----

People I know nothing about: Militant, Subgenius.

Of the two, I'd find subgenius more suspicious. He had no suspicions of Panzer at all till Feb 5, then jumped in with a vote on him at the point when heat on Panzer was picking up. Before that, his post number 2 was purely theory, and his post 3 reads like he didn't want to commit to a case on anyone.

----

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

[springlullaby]

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

1. Dourgrim votes for SL based on her casting a random vote early in the game despite actual discussion taking place and after her absence had been noted.

2. Dejkha FoS's Dourgrim and mentions that he too has been guilty of light posting, and could be one of Dourgrim's targets based on the criteria the he used to vote SL.

3. SL argues that Dejkha's FoS of Dourgrim is OMGUS because he is responding to Dourgrims vote against SL, which was based on criteria that could equally be applied to either SL or Dejkha. It's sort of an OMGUS once removed.

At least I think this is what SL is saying, she can confirm or deny.

This is an acceptable summary, only Dourgrim didn't vote me, but Fos'ed me at the time.

Plus, I think djekha's action wasn't justified in the first place, because I do think not trying to help the discussion along early on is minorly scummy, and didn't warrant a defense. Why not simply let me answer to it?

[GIEFF]

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

Thanks, that makes more sense to me now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----------

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

[Dourgrim]

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

Meh, it's all good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't trying to spin the thread... but it looks like your notes and your follow-up post are similar enough to forgive. I do think, though, that the Notes utility above might be a better place to do that sort of thing in the future, assuming you can't keep a spreadsheet or other doc. Anyway, issue over, moving on.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's lack of a random vote till well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

I continued the conversation long after it should've ended because I was being attacked and nitpicked over what I believe was an understandable reason to vote someone in the very early game. Since then the logic for the vote became less valid, as I conceded in a later post, which is when I let the entire thing go... or tried to, anyway. My initial attack was exploratory, and then as the debate went on I became defensive and was offended by a couple of comments that were made. (I am not a fan of inflammatory posting or spin-doctoring, as you may have already ascertained... and, for the record, I'm still slightly suspicious of the "Dourscum" crap from back then. I don't see how that sort of thing can possibly be "accidental.")

When I posted above that I'm not entirely comfortable with the current wagon, it's because of one thing: the wagon was being aggressively led by GIEFF, who I had a bad feeling about from way back at that initial vote. My logic for the vote may not have remained bulletproof, but the feeling is still there. Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread. I believe in "Lynch All Liars" as a general rule, but in this instance it feels like we're talking about people being pushed into poorly thought-out answers rather than outright lies. And who did the pushing? GIEFF. Imagine that.

FoS: GIEFF

, which might very well become a vote in the very near future.

[GIEFF]

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

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

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

[Dourgrim]

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

You have gone into tremendous detail throughout this game, I'll give you that. However, I never once said I disagree with your reasons for voting Panzer. What I

actually

said was:

Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread. I believe in "Lynch All Liars" as a general rule, but in this instance it feels like we're talking about people being pushed into poorly thought-out answers rather than outright lies.

If you can't see the difference between those two statements, there's probably no hope in even trying to debate with you. Here's a hint: note the word "similar" in the quote, as opposed to the word "same" which does not appear anywhere in the quote. Also, you'll kindly note the word "feel" in the quote, which indicates a "feeling" (also sometimes referred to as a "hunch"), as opposed to any formulaic "scumtells" and so forth that you seem so fond of trying to point out.

You seem to have gone to great lengths to try to prove to every player in this game how your perception is the only possible interpretation of any given post. Bravo for your purposeful nature, but please try to restrain yourself from trying to misinterpret other people's actual words into your perceived meanings in the future.

Y'know what? To heck with waiting for the weekend and a full read-through. To me it looks like you're now being blatantly deceptive, and I think that trumps Panzer and myko when it comes to the "Lynch All Liars" rule.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

"Dourscum" signing out.

[GIEFF]

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

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

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


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

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

[kloud1516]

dejkha has requested a replacement. I am working on finding someone to jump into the game.

[Dourgrim]

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

I have gone into tremendous detail about Panzer. Please show me where myko did the same, or

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

[GIEFF]

Please show me where myko did the same,

or

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

[GIEFF]

A = lied about the reasoning for a vote.

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

We think Panzer and myko acted similarly.

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

I can't make it any simpler than that.