Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Zilla]

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.

I see where you got that out of:

(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).

I'm talking about the

argument

over the SK thing, specifically the parts where people say the SK knows who the mafia are, whether or not the SK is more desirable for a lynch, etc. The debate over it got very pointless, very fast.

I also said this:

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.

[Zilla]

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

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

[PJ.]

SPIN DOCTOR!!! YOU LOSE!!!!!

[Goatrevolt]

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

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

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

[mykonian]

mykonian

- His general logic is baseless and stupid.

that hurts...

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.

I voted you because, while your posts were long, they said very little, and so for the notes: they tell me nothing. But I'm happy that goatrevolt got you to post this. This helps.

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.)

active lurker doesn't mean that you can't be right. Earlier I had brought up why I would vote you, why I suspect GIEFF (I don't know if I did that in the same post, but in general, I think he blows up cases unnatural far)

[GIEFF]

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

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

Not a random vote

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

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

Also, did I mention that Panzer lied?

(bold for GIEFF to be proud)

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

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


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

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

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

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

Post 150

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

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

And you just lied about it.

I agree.

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

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

eh heh heh...NO.

Vote Panzerjager

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

HoS Beyond_Birthday

. Busted.

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

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

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


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

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

Yes, although I was also trying to be funny.

------



Zilla, have you read the entire thread yet?


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

@mykonian:

Post 244

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

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

[mykonian]

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.

I thought we stopped random voting? The game already started! While you are so annoyed that I want you to simply reread, all you can think of is to vote me because I reacted annoyed! I don't know what goading means, but the word general in front of it already tells you you have to back this up.

I'll believe you at the non-commital behaviour, it seems an easy accusation to make in the start of the game. I've got nothing to go on, and that doesn't help me to get ideas...

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.

You aren't defending me, are you?

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

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

Not a random vote

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

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

a weak vote, already seen from the reasons, and the timing of the vote. Policy FoS from my side. Did I mention I think you blow up your cases far too much?

Post 244

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

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

OK, lets get this over with now.

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

I can't see a towny push a case like yours, and not dropping it on the moment people point out to him that early play, and lies in early play, are not hard scumtells. You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

[GIEFF]

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

[militant]

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.

I tend to post my thoughts even if they are a little weak or whatever. It's just the way I play I guess.

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

What are you talking? You wanted a summary of past events not Beyond_Birthday's opinion on each player. To me it seems like you are trying to "play down" the suspicions posted against you calling you lazy for not reading the thread by saying it was not a difficult task you required.

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.

Could have fooled me. I though you were not doing a great lot apart from arguing about petty things like not reading the game and asking for a summary which you dislike:

^ 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.

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

Since reading post 290 the above quote suggests another link between Zilla and BB. BB supplied a player by player list of opinions so Zilla could say as explained above "See, wasn't so hard now, was it?" to further try and validate her request for a summary. But perhaps I am reading into the game too much again.

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

What does LAL mean? I am not a fan of misleading acronyms in the presence of relatively inexperienced players like me.

[GIEFF]

LAL means lynch all liars.

[mykonian]

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

if you are scum, yes. If you are not, then you have heard that I don't completely agree with the way you play. I think that if those cases were pushed to a lynch, it wouldn't be much better then a random lynch, and I don't want that, while you seem to be too eager to push them.

[GIEFF]

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

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

I

think the case is bad?

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

[mykonian]

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push. And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest. This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

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

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

[PJ.]

Dourgrim, Where are you? Why haven't you been posting? Aren't you supposed to be giving 100% in all your games? Maybe you should be posting here and not else where?

[Dourgrim]

I just reread the entire thread and noticed a few things:

1) I really did get a bit over-emotional during my debate with GIEFF earlier in the thread, probably because I wasn't prepared for GIEFF's "nitpick" style of analysis. The whole thing reads kinda... weird, now that some time has elapsed since it happened. Anyway, sorry for making the debate personal, that was uncalled for. I'm still not the biggest fan of GIEFF's playstyle, but it's a lot less offensive with age than it seemed at first. The thing that I still can't get past is the "Dourscum" thing. How can that possibly be anything but intentional?

2) I genuinely think the case against Panzer is a bit overinflated at this point. Panzer definitely changed his story in mid-stream regarding his vote, but the feeling I got after rereading was that it wasn't as much a "tell" as it was a change of heart and subsequent mistake in explanation. YMMV, of course.

3) I actually think I understand Zilla's desire to hear a synopsis rather than reading the thread. I don't

agree

with it, mind you, but I understand where she's coming from.

4) A lot of mykonian's behavior seems to be stemming from irritation, not actual discussion at this point. While I'll be the first to admit how irritating GIEFF can be in this game (;)), I think it's important we look a bit deeper than an OMGUS vote, which is what it looks like mykonian's doing.

5) We have quite a few confrontational and/or outspoken players in this game, and it's only natural that those sort of players will butt heads from time to time. It does make getting a clear read on the game a bit more challenging, especially with the gigantic quote blocks and posting speeds of some players compared to others.

I want to see Macavity return to this game and post before I place my vote.

[militant]

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push.

And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest.

This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

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

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

I disagree on both he bolded points:

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

LAL means lynch all liars.

Thanks

[Dourgrim]

I was composing my post, Panzer. I do most of my posting at work, and occasionally I have to actually work and can't post quite as fast as I'd like.

Please try not to let your experiences in other active games bleed over into this one. There's no reason for it.

[PJ.]

1) I really did get a bit over-emotional during my debate with GIEFF earlier in the thread, probably because I wasn't prepared for GIEFF's "nitpick" style of analysis. The whole thing reads kinda... weird, now that some time has elapsed since it happened. Anyway, sorry for making the debate personal, that was uncalled for. I'm still not the biggest fan of GIEFF's playstyle, but it's a lot less offensive with age than it seemed at first. The thing that I still can't get past is the "Dourscum" thing. How can that possibly be anything but intentional?

You tend to have a trend of getting over-emotional in mafia games, hopefully you don't let that decide your vote in this game.

[Dourgrim]

Sarcasm noted, although uncalled for.

[GIEFF]

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

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




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

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


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


Post 241

I don't like GIEFF's post 54

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

Here is Post 54, for reference.

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

Post 90

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

I like post 54

.

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

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

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

[kloud1516]

MacavityLock has requested replacement. qwints replaces MacavityLock, effective immediately.

[mykonian]

4) A lot of mykonian's behavior seems to be stemming from irritation, not actual discussion at this point. While I'll be the first to admit how irritating GIEFF can be in this game (;)), I think it's important we look a bit deeper than an OMGUS vote, which is what it looks like mykonian's doing.

I think I know where you are getting at. You think I vote GIEFF to protect panzer, to divert attention. I'm sorry, I can't help you there. I believe GIEFF is scummy, I don't vote him for his vote on panzer, I vote him for blowing up a weak case.

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push.

And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest.

This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

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

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

I disagree on both he bolded points:

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

LAL means lynch all liars.

Thanks

I quote this whole post, so you can see. It is not about the mislynch (good catch, thank you) it is about the hiding behind LAL. After that, GIEFF suddenly needs no reasons for a lynch anymore, as it is the obvious scumtell... But it is not appropriate here.

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

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

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

[qwints]

Hi everyone! I'll be reading up and will post my thoughts sometime later today.

[Dourgrim]

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

No no no, you misunderstand me. I'm not that upset with it per se, although our earlier debate did get a bit heated at points; at the time (and to an extent still), I viewed it as spin-doctoring, which made me suspicious and compelled me to point it out. You've said it was an accident, and I genuinely appreciate the apology... but I don't necessarily believe it

was

an accident, which is why I keep bringing it up. I think it may have been an attempt on your part to influence other people's opinions of your case against me "subliminally" so to speak. In a nutshell, I'm not entirely convinced of your sincerity, but I promise I'm not mad about it either.

[Zilla]

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

What.
the.
Fuck.

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

Reading up from the front, I'm on page 6, and reading back from latest, I'm at page 9, so I've got three pages that I haven't read but I can pretty much fill in by stitching together the two segments.

Armed with more information, Panzer's conduct is fishy in regards to his case on mykonian, but also, mykonian is fishy himself, and the nature of their interactions has me believing they are mutually exclusive candidates for being scum. I can't see them both being scum at this point, there's too much of a fluid dynamic between them and it doesn't read as a distance tactic. Scum wouldn't make a strong commotion about a supposed "slip" like that, as far as I know. It's always a WIFOM, but this one seems like they would really have to be stretching it if they're distancing.

If I had to call it between them, I'd give it to Mykonian for scum. This assessment really bugs me:

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

This progression isn't logical at all. Panzer lying would definately make him anti-town, and anti-town behavior is beneficial to scum, therefore, if they are lying, and there is no benefit to the town in the dishonesty, it is a valid reason to suspect them of being scum. GIEFF believes this. To use his phrasing,

You have a case based on someone thinking that someone else is scum because they lied: HORRIBLE.