Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Zilla]

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case. I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an

FOS

.

[mykonian]

but still your vote doesn't make sense...

now, before I vote you, would you please reread? This is getting annoying.

[ting =)]

Man. This game moves fast.

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.

This is a horrible misrepresentation of MY case.

The whole

case on him about the slip

hinges on the fact that he used the word 'townie.'

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

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:

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

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

Another post from me, after that post:

@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?

I further point to your post 55, and goatrevolt's 56 - both posts where you thought myko might have been serious about his vote. I accepted his explanation that it was a mistake, and I think panzer's early joke-serious was a mistake too. My question to you was why you likewise considered myko's joke-serious stint as a mistake, but not panzer's.

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.

Your lack of a random vote was an issue until post 82, where Dourgrim took back his accusations. You weere discussing other things too, yes, but they were offshoots of the discussion of dourgrim's attack on you for your lack of a random vote (like how you felt dour's attack on you for it was unjustified). I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. Simplistic, maybe, but accurate.

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.

That was exactly my question, yes - was it a pressure vote, or a vote with intent to lynch? Of course I don't think people should mention it when they're voting for pressure. Now that that whole disucssion is over though, I just wanted to know how serious you were about your vote at the time.

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

What does this mean?

I have no strong opinions about them.

[ting =)]

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.

See post 55-58. It's the stretch of posts where we're all wondering if myko was jokey or serious about his vote. I made a later post asking myko about it, his explanation satisfied me, as did panzer's about his joke/serious thing.

----

@subgenius, 238.
Thanks for explaining the timing of your vote. It helps.

Also,

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.

That sums up my thoughts of gieff rather well.

----

@goat-zilla.
I really don't think goatrevolt warranted a vote. I don't think zilla asking for a summary warranted a vote either. I tend to ask for summaries when I replace into a game, not because I don't want to read the previous posts, I do, but because it helps me look into the past posts in context of the current situation. Some people find that anti-town and unhelpful. Some don't. I think it's a null tell in either case, since I've seen both happen before.

[militant]

Okay, after a few busy days om real life, I'm back and re reading...

To start with I am suspicious of people accusing others or roles that they don't even know exist. It was plain for all to see GIEFF's "obvscum" comment was a joke and not to be taken seriously. This has happened to me before because I choose the name "militant" who are stereotypically regarded as bad guys but something like that is not to be regarded as a serious accusation in my opinion.

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

I didn't like this post because ting is effectively voting Panzejager for creating and stimulating discussion. To start to discussion you have to make a case and it would be hard to start if you only ever focused on the huge mistakes a player might make. By focusing on any possible mistake it gets discussion going and as Panzerjager said he was "propelling us out of random voting" which I see as good in a way. Bad in another way though...

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

.

Agreed. Although it is possible that a SK could be a tad helpful and kill a mafiate the chances of a SK killing a town player is much greater and I happen to think that killing a SK is better than gambling on that relatively small change of a SK killing a mafiate.

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

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

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

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

I tend to explain things to myself: Mykonian accused GIEFF if I remember correctly of being

the

SK when he does not know of one existing. Now in the above quote Panzerjager says that everybody in this game should want to lynch mafia apart from the mafia so Mykonian's accusation of a SK killer was curious because GIEFF's accusation could well have made him town as well as a

possible

SK. The only logical reason I can think of for Mykonian for doing this is if he is the SK and wanted to pin it on someone to make him look like anything but the SK he seems to think exists.

I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

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

@GIEFF: The game started 36 hours ago, and we're on page 4. Don't you think it's early to use the "active lurker" card? I know that I have more time for Mafia games on the weekend, so that's usually when I make my big posts.

Same. I was busy in the week building snowmen and such in the rare weather Britain has been encountering the last week or so. Mafia has taken the backseat to a temporary source of fun for a while which explains my absence. Also, GIEFF, that's one neat script

Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

I dislike the way you so openly advocate a bandwagon so early in the day. I'm not defending djekha's actions but merely commenting on SL's actions.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO.

You don't know who the town are in the group of people playing now unless of course your mafia. A minor slip perhaps.

FoS militant

Start contributing.

I will from now on, now I know where I am and whats going on I think I will do a better job. Your pressure worked.

Also

Unvote

. It was a random vote anyway and now it the time to be serious and think...

[PJ.]

Then Ting, read my post, and ask does that apply to you.

She is saying that Goatrevolt is delibrately cutting of new information by not giving a SUMMARY of PAST events. Would you vote a player refusing to give you a summary based on him not giving you new information.

For Zilla and Ting's benefit, I'm going to post the definition of Summary

1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

[militant]

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.

Won't this be gained from reading the thread?

you don't like his attitude: brilliant.

I agree the reasons supporting the vote are weak. Another player's attitude is surely not indicative of their alignment; it's the way they are unless they are fabricating said attitude. Also what aspects of Goat's attitude to you dislike specifically? (Goat I don't mean to make you feel bad but want to understand if that was a serious concern or just another void and pointless excuse to vote you).

On a grander scale not reading the thread is counter productive and obnoxious. You say Goat is attempting to restrict a source of information but he cannot possibly do that because all the information is in the thread you seemingly don't wish to read.

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.

This is laughable; from what I understand you are discounting the credibility of all cases formed in this game because no one has the patience to repeat them for your benefit.

[Beyond_Birthday]

[any of his post since my last one]

*shrugs* Okay. <--doesn't care.

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

Since you appear to be either an idiot or new, I'm going to tell you that neither of these are reasons.

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.

It does. How can you build a house without a foundation? It is great to ask for opinions and other people's views on what has happened AFTER you know what has happened. If someone else tells you, you get a biased, uneven opinion and then, you will only see what they have told you to look for. You fail to give the town a fresh, new perspective on the situation and more than anything THAT is scummy.

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.

Stop what source of information? The same opinions he's been offering? And if you're talking about you: You haven't read the game yet and, therefore, clearly cannot be a source of information. This logic is nonexistent.

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).

If you read the past 12 pages (it isn't that hard. I read a friggin 30 page game in 2 hours for a replacement I KNOW you can read 12 in maybe 30 minutes since there are a lack of gargantuan posts), you would know his reasons for voting Cavity. And if you don't read those posts, how do we know you'll read any posts at all?

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.

...WHAT?! You don't need a frame of reference! Just read everyone and try and develop your own characterization of each person otherwise your frame of reference will just be a copy of someone elses or you will ONLY counter one person. Offering your own opinion is much better than hearing the same thing again or an attack on ONLY one person's opinion. Seriously, replacing in is difficult, but not impossible or greatly challenging...

*despite her finished reading and what not, I am posting this because effort was involved.

At Panzer: No, honestly, I thought that Gieff had a point with your actions up to that point. However, I mildly reread his points, checked them, and then realized (much like Zilla's last post suggests) that it is just a petty argument over, apparently, a random vote.

Hm... Zilla' opinion on Panzer is interesting, but is that really it? You have no opinon, Zilla, on ANYONE ELSE AT ALL!?

C'mon, Gieff has several posts. You don't have a view on him? Goat?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop: (I missed page 12) I am referring to the post 274 in my above post.

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case.

I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an

FOS

.

So...you are saying that if a person is insane, anything can be a scum tell?

I like the last few militant and Ting posts... however, I feel like I don't really know anyone is or isn't scummy exactly. I don't have a heavy read, and again, been busy, so I haven't looked into a few cases too heavily. I am going to do that, I promise. But, I won't get around to it till tomorrow. Sorry.

[kloud1516]

Prodding Dourgrim.

[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.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry, I've been skimming the thread. My vote is still somewhere I'm comfortable with for now, but I do need to do a thorough readthrough sometime tomorrow.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Beyond_Birthday

<—Obvious serial killer.

Zilla

Replacing dejkha<---
Okay, I don’t like Dejkha. His general posts rub me the wrong way. On the other hand, Zilla just screams lazy and makes me angry. Maybe Zilla is scum or town or third party or I don’t really know. Dejkha looked slightly more town than not though. Just, need more reads.

Dourgrim

You’re an idiot. Myk’s logic (his post against GIEFF) WAS STUPID. There is no role in a normal set up that could find all 3 of the mafia. EXCEPT MAFIA. If he didn’t list himself then obviously the list was fake. However, SK would NOT know the mafia. It doesn’t happen. A cop wouldn’t know, mafia members would never name themselves and their partners as mafia unless they were killed and did it out of frustration <–newb mafia. Also, you don’t dictate when people get to have their “random votes.” Page 4=probably too late for it. But page 2? Your attacks on GIEFF for his obvious scum comment is actually very good and well done. Your next counter argument is also well formed. Moving on, I like you in general. You make sense and I can agree with you.

GIEFF

- (for a bit more, see the end of mykonian’s)
Meh... your very closeminded and although I agree with your general arguments, I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit. It feels like the beginning of this started off so well and should have either been expanded upon or dropped when someone did something scummy (say, joining the bandwagon just for the hell of it) but lately the whole gangbang has gone down hill and the purpose of the wagon was gone when you admitted that over half of the argument all goes back to the Rving, which was irrelevant or lost in relation to the other just as weak points. I feel that your aggression may have back fired, but it isn’t scummy.

Goatrevolt

-
I have zero complaints.

MacavityLock

-
I don’t like his reasoning, which is apparently flawed. He voted Panzer for bringing up the idea of SK (though Myk alluded to an anti town non mafia faction earlier) and claims that Panzer is also possible for mafia. (His reasoning, however, is that Panzer brought up the SK so must be SK, so how does this make Panzer equally likely to be mafia and SK? Mafia are not aware of SK.) Aside from this, his reasoning on the mafia theory is stupid and wrong. I don’t like his theory though I do hope he gets well soon.

militant

- His first serious post questions Ting’s vote of Panzer, which he suggests is Ting attacking a player for initiating discussion. I can see his logic here, and he also brings a slight question against Cavity’s opinion on the SK vs mafia theory. I however feel that he reads a bit too much into SL’s post because he is kind of picking at words that are perfectly sensible to use. His last post is also generally amiable but more is needed in order to form any more of a solid read on Militant.

mykonian

- His general logic is baseless and stupid. However, he makes a few good points. For one, I do like his assessment of Dour and GIEFF. Hm.. Actually, his early point was baseless and stupid, but in general, I feel that his defense of Panzer is pretty sensible. He seems level headed in these later posts. However, he votes for me because I make a lot of notes, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. That’s okay though. I still acknowledge and don’t care too much.

Still...:

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)

I don’t follow how you agree with me and then vote me. How is annoying>pretending to participate? (I say this because I don’t know a better way to phrase what GIEFF’s later posts are.)

Panzerjager

-
For the most part, I don’t agree with a good deal of Pan’s assessments, but I know that Pan looks more like a victim for a majority of this game than an actual contender. (And by victim, I mean that the case on her looks like it was derived from a really crappy foundation and though the bandwagon should have had the purpose of forcing discussion, it kind of backfired and stalled. Maybe no one joined it scummily enough for it to be useful, but I think it should have served that function. Pan’s attacks on Spring though seem like legitimate attempts at scum hunting, so I feel a slight town vibe from Panzer. Her thought that my unvote was scummy struck me as odd, but I don’t really care if I look scummy.

springlullaby

- Her philosophy is one I like. (Her play style always reads as scummy to me, so I have to read the posts really carefully.) Um... like Goat, I don’t have much to say since again I have “no complaints.”

subgenius

- I like him too. He doesn’t post often, but he posts good information about the game. In general, I get town vibes and will leave him alone too.

ting =)

- I honestly feel that he is playing kind safe, but it might be his non agression in a lot of brazen personalities. (Spring, Dour, GIEFF, Goat even. The rest seem considerably more aggressive than Ting.

Of the whole bunch I would vote Macavity as he bothers me the most, but he hasn’t posted in so long I don’t really see the point. Oh well, I’ll just wait to next time. The next scummiest person might be Ting in my book, but I need a bit more discussion to really decide. (And the return of cavity with his thoughts will also help.)

[Zilla]

^ See, wasn't so hard now, was it?

Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.

We've got a mannequin in class. Before we ask the instructor anything about our code, we have to explain what our problem is to the mannequin. This is because in the middle of explaining it, we will often realize our own mistake, saving the instructor time.

I'm trying that approach here, because honestly, I haven't seen a case I've liked so far, and also honestly, I don't have a good feel on anybody. Most games, everybody is at least somewhat town. This game, it seems like everyone and their brother are scum.

Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

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. 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.

[Zilla]

WHAT?! You don't need a frame of reference! Just read everyone and try and develop your own characterization of each person otherwise your frame of reference will just be a copy of someone elses or you will ONLY counter one person. Offering your own opinion is much better than hearing the same thing again or an attack on ONLY one person's opinion. Seriously, replacing in is difficult, but not impossible or greatly challenging...

Someone didn't read that I'm not looking for a case to follow but where people stand on their cases. If I were just looking for some cast to latch on to, I'd do a speed-read of the top vote getter's voters and lazily construct a half-assed reason to bandwagon. No, I'm evaluating the players based on their stances and how likely their positions are actual scumhunting instead of just setting up a fall-guy or trying ot lynch anybody.

That's what I was alluding to when I said it would be helpful to current players, they could see if people are voting for bad reasons more clearly.

I've been in games with a few people like this before, never one with this many. That's one reason I think everybody looks scummy, usually I'd have no problem getting people to say where they stand on this game, but instead this time I'm met with fierce resistance as if I'm lazy for trying to get accountability. I really don't think there are 6 scum in this game... :/

[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.

[Zilla]

Fuck but if this isn't a long, boring, unhelpful post. Skip to *** for summary.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Who said it did?

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.

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. You're pushing people on stupid non logic, you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you, and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static, and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you.

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

Again, welcome to the party.

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 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).

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

Again, vague and shoddy explanation.

These are errors that could be cleared up by reading through my posts

Or, you know, you could go on record and restate your prized opinions, you know, instead of arguing like this, which, god DAMN if it doesn't take less time.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Half-right. It's initial cause is because you "didn't give me what I wanted," but it's not emotional, it's because you're uncooperative response seems incredibly scummy (read again, paranoia about creating inconsistencies, stemming possible inputs of information.




**************************************************

Aggresively defensive? That post is a case in point.

Goat's post is entirely enraging in that he always alludes to this "magic evidence" that he won't actually use, and so he fails to actually address anything.

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.

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

There's also the point that he expended way too much energy to craft yet another vague argument when he could have instead been a pro-town player and actually given his precious and oh-so-secret opinion on players in the game.

There's further his small misreps on my case, though that seems to be quite the epidemic around here.

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.

The SK thing was stupid, the first person who said "SK" might be the SK if there even is an SK, but beyond that, that whole argument has gotten way out of hand.

The "townie" thing has similarly been over-analyzed.

Just about every player right now looks like scum to me because all they've been talking about has been baseless menial tripe, and nobody really stands out from the crowd. I'd say Spring Lullaby wins the most town award.

[Zilla]

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.

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

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.

I'm going to interrupt right here and say this reads as a scum-buddying-to-town tactic; you know Panzer's town so you want this on record that you "had a hunch" he was town already, so your reputation is better.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

[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.

[PJ.]

In light of this arguement, I'm going

Unvote:Zilla

This is because it genuinely looks like 2 townies going at it because of something that was bullshit due to a player being lazy. Her uber-long post, have proved to me that she's not lazy, although I didn't like how zilla was asking(BSing us), I'm going to buy her reasoning.

On to Beyond Birthday, I'm in complete agreeance with Goatrevolt that BB jumped on me for bad reasons and then as soon as it started dying he jumped ship. Mykonian also touched on something similar to this in one of his earlier post that BB pretty much said DGAF to because he doubted the Myko would follow up. Note that BB was also 4th on my wagon, which is a scumtell in and of itself.

Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday

[Zilla]

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

Also, I didn't read all of 294 because it was, again, an extension of minutia. If I answered all those, we'd be bickering for the rest of the day.

Now I've got to suppress the urge to answer them.. >_<

I guess there are some brief things I still need to address.

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

For now,

Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

[PJ.]

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

[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.