Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[PJ.]

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.

Ironically in the same paragraph you tell me you're not Fence sitting you tell that you, indeed, are fence sitting. Also, read any of my games or ask a player who is prominent at this site and

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

FoS:Gieff

[GIEFF]

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

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

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

1. Post 131

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

   Post 135

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

   
   
2. Post 157

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

   
   Post 158

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

   Vote:Springlullaby

3. Post 216

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

   Post 225

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

   
   
4. Post 217

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

   Post 225

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

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

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

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

[Beyond_Birthday]

Dour might have a point on Gieff. To be perfectly honest I haven't paid close enough attention to tell, but I do know that Gieffs reply, 224, was adequate in my opinion. I don't like Panzer's latest post, and I do like Ting's notes, if only for their reference and broad coverage of all other players.

I still follow Spring's logic and, honestly, appreciate her input. She has made the most sense to me, though she does lack the detail Gieff presented...

[mykonian]

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?

tomorrow I'm going to try to get some non-random thing going. So yes, it is still random.

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?

you put your observation better then I would have been able to post it. I was simply annoyed that they seemed to talk about nothing.

[PJ.]

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

I'm done addressing GIEFF because he is just tunnel visioning on me, which is scummy.

[GIEFF]

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

What do you mean by this?

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

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

Post 44.

[PJ.]

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

[PJ.]

EBWOP: Oh don't you want to tell me I lied about Post 44 because later I said that Scum Slips were the weakest scum tell?

Go Ahead, enjoy.

[GIEFF]

I also brought up Spring's fence sitting first.

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

at the time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A supposed "lie" the intentions of my

random vote

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

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia.

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

Random voting... for a huge scum slip?

EBWOP: Ting,

I'm propelling us out of Random Voting.

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

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

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

Random voting... because you find somebody scummy?


That wasn't a random vote. Stop lying.



Semantics again, but I think it is relevant:

@Gieff: I

truly

believe

Both of these

honestly

go into semantics

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

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

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

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

[Beyond_Birthday]

Meh...
I don't like some of the points being made against Panzer in this last post. Half of your argument seems to be reduced to a "random vote" that was claimed to have been, at the time of its posting, "not random" (by implication).

Unvote

[GIEFF]

My poor wagon.

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

[kloud1516]

Zilla replaces dejkha, effective immediately.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Not really, but since I am currently debating on the validity of the Pan wagon, I no longer feel comfortable leaving my vote there. I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions. (I prefer voting to FoS, and if I vote someone, I usually don't have an issue with their lynch.)

So, I am going to take a second look at the Panzer wagon, look at it, and see what happened.

As for the additonal points: Eh, kind of hit and miss because I don't clearly remember the context. I need to look into it. Some I'm like: Oh, I see that while others are more of a Wait...that happened...?

I really need to use your little URL post references and look AT the post to make sure I agree with a Pan lynch versus someone else. (Plus, to look at you would be helpful. Can't be a sheep to a shepherd in this game, nope, nope, nope.)

[subgenius]

I don't have too much specific to add to the parsing and nitpicking cases that seem to be dominating at the moment, but I'll try to at least post an overview of how I'm reading things right now.

My vote is currently on Panzer, and nothing that's happened in the last few pages has made me think about moving it elsewhere. I'll try to show my reasoning and explain the timing of my vote in order to address Ting's comment about my vote being a little suspicious. Up until his 'slip' most of the discussion about Panzer revolved around if/when he realized Myko's initial vote was serious or not and whether or not this constituted a lie. To be honest, I didn't find this line of questioning especially interesting at the time it was occurring. What I did find interesting is that he made his 'slip' and attempted to start a new case against SL at just about the same time that GRIEFF had all but confirmed that Panzer wasn't being completely honest about his vote on Myko. As I mentioned in my first FoS of Panzer, I thought the timing of his case on SL very suspicious. Why would he wait until page 7 to start pressuring SL for a vote that she made on page 4? He posted 3 times after SL's vote on Dekhja before he decided to make a case out of it. This elapsed time combined with the awkward segue of "Hey, I'm not a liar, but check out what SL did," seemed like a likely attempt to divert attention with an arbitrary accusation. Secondly, I do think that the 'slip' was no small thing. Panzer strikes me as almost a stream of conscience poster. I think it's extremely plausible that he made a fruedian slip without noticing it. This kind of mistake doesn't make sense for a townie at all. Panzer claims that he only wrote "townie" because he didn't feel like looking up Dejkha's (i'm sure I mispelled this) name. I can sympathize, but I think an actual townie, espeically one as experienced as I think Panzer is, would have chosen "player", "poster, or "person" rather than "townie". I hope this explains the timing of my vote to those who thought it was a little abrupt.

As far as SL fence sitting or applying scum tells inconsistently, I don't find either of these accusation especially compelling. It makes sense to me for someone to find a case convincing yet not be ready to cast a vote that would place the victim within hammer range. It also makes sense to me to apply a scum tell to one person over another in some situations, especially if your goal is to apply pressure in order to squeeze more telling reactions out of a player. SL explicitly stated in her vote on Dejkha that she was unhappy with the current discussion and wanted to start more focused discussion. So she focused on Dejkha. Arbitrary? Sure, but it makes sense considering her stated motive. If we later confirm alignments on Dekjha or Ting, we might be able to make more out of this seemingly arbitrary decision, but I don't find it very suspicious for the time being.

As for Grieff, I appreciate his pointed questions and aggressiveness for now. I think that this aggressiveness has been responsible for pushing Panzer into what I feel was a legitimate mistake. On the other hand, I think Dourgrim has a point when he says that Grieff has a talent for prying scum tells out of posts that might not actually mean anything. This is certainly a double edged sword. Unless Dourgrim comes up with something pretty damning, I don't think I'll be persuaded to vote for the most active scum hunter, but depending on how things progress, Grieff's posts from Day 1 might require some very careful re-reading.

Most of the other players seem to have blended into the background, which I think is somewhat dangerous. Despite feeling pretty confident about the case on Panzer, I think it will be a good thing to get some opinions from Dekjha's replacement, militant, and macavity. Let's not forget, Macavity still hasn't explained why he named Panzer as his #1 SK and mafia suspect long before the bandwagon started filling up. He still needs to answer some questions about that.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count IV

Panzerjager

(3): ting=), GIEFF, subgenius

GIEFF

(2): mykonian, Dourgrim

ting=)

(1): militant

MacavityLock

(1): Goatrevolt

Zilla

(1): springlullaby

springlullaby

(1): Panzerjager

Not Voting:

Zilla, MacavityLock, Beyond_Birthday

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

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

[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.

[mykonian]

It seems I always think spring scum: one time I was right, one time I wasn't. The way she attacked dejkha, while not being very good is not something I would trust my vote on.

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.

Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.

mouthy and being aggressive are two different things: you are being quite defensive. And stop apoligizing for posting, it is a good thing, and the more information in this game, the more I'll like it.

I don't like GIEFF's post 54, esspecially the part where he attacks dourgrims random vote. Reasons given were: GIEFF hadn't voted yet, there were 2 votes on GIEFF and OMGUS. I can shoot holes in such a case...

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

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

Vote: Dourgrim

and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum. Strawman (he makes the vote bigger then it is, to make it a serious point against dourgrim)

Then we get the big posts that boil down to the problem of the post above: GIEFF tries to make a case out of it. Dourgrim defends...

GIEFF is quite eager to point out who the lurkers are. Null-tell, but something to remember (it is not really a null-tell, but I like scum to be active)

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

Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. It

could

point to scum covering for each other.

really? it

could

also be two townies, and math tells us this is more likely . nulltell.

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

you just don't like how I point out that your cases don't exist. There was no big case, and theory tells us that. Then you don't like the theory...

well, we can always random lynch, can't we?

Currently, I'm getting very bad vibes from Springlullaby and she seems to be far more eager then I am.

hmm, we are not going to vote for aggressiveness, right?

Beyond, post 150. He finally says something... He quotes massive posts, with the comment that he agrees. Large posts: yes, content: no. And after he has said little to nothing (really, I can't find much in that post) he votes Panzer. Brilliant.

post 153: more of the same. I don't like it.

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

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

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

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

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

Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.

Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.

vote Beyond_birthday.

FoS GIEFF

(no, I don't like your play)

[subgenius]

I'm confused, are you saying that Beyond's notes are scummy or are you casting a vote out of annoyance? You agree with his assessment of Gieff's case and then vote for him. What am I missing?

[mykonian]

I'm confused, are you saying that Beyond's notes are scummy or are you casting a vote out of annoyance? You agree with his assessment of Gieff's case and then vote for him. What am I missing?

the fact that I would like much, much more out of him. He promises big posts, then I would like them to be stuffed with information, not with quotes of GIEFF's big posts. And I agreed on one point with him, but that doesn't mean I like his bandwagon vote (and it was that, because he only stated a few times he agreed, and then voted).

I never said it was a strong case. I don't think there is an obvious strong case available at the moment.

[GIEFF]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

FoS militant

Start contributing.

[mykonian]

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

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

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

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

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

[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?

[mykonian]

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?

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

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

[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.

[kloud1516]

Please keep in mind Rule 11 when voting.