Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[mykonian]

zilla, please reread where this is coming from. I have tried to explain why LAL can't be used here, as lieing is not a scumtell here: scum had nothing to gain from it.

It's like you are doing it on purpose... Please finish rereading before commenting on the current game.

[Zilla]

Reading again on Mykonian, I rescind my prior notion that he and Panzer are mutually exclusive. It seems like it's been a one-way street and Panzer's been on Mykonian, and mykonian fails to really acknowledge this attack. That's a bus tactic. Since Mykonian is the one doing the sideways defense, I'm more suspect of him than Panzer at this point, because it's still possible he's just defending a townie who happens to be attacking him to try to alleviate that suspicion.

[GIEFF]

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!

Which of the four points do you disagree with? Let's actually try to discuss this. If you are town, and you really think that Panzer is town, you should want to convince me of the bogus-i-tude of my case. I am pushing aggressively for a Panzer lynch because I think he is scum. Your "never ever" does not apply.

Here's what you've said about my case so far; I'll put it all here and answer specifically to show why I don't agree. Then hopefully you can either tell me which of the 4 above points (in Post 319) you don't agree with or tell me what about the below responses are wrong.

And you because you have found a "contradiction". Like that is a scumtell. You say that two statements panzer said cannot both be true, and so he must be a liar. It is "how-do-I-find-scum-in-three-days" and it doesn't work.

It is more than just a contradiction; it is continuous lying about the reasoning behind a vote. As outlined in reasons 1-3, I think this is scummy.

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No.

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. It wasn't the day one vote that was a lie, it was the later explanations of it that were lies, and there were more than one. Here is how I responded at the time:

But Panzer's vote wasn't random. Of course the lie isn't intentional; that's a silly thing to say. That's the whole point.

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell. There is no reason for a townie to lie about the reasons for a vote, and to do so reveals the fact that the logic presented at the time of a vote isn't the actual reason for the vote.

And then we sort of dropped it, with you being sure that my case is baseless. There

is

a reason for scum to lie, and I have explained what that is (points 2 and 3), and I believe your only answer for that has been a WIFOM-y "scum wouldn't do that because it looks scummy"-type reply.


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


@Dourgrim: What good does it do to keep bringing it up if it's not because you're upset? I think this is the 3rd or 4th time it was mentioned. It was an accident; what more do you want me to say? There's no way for me to convince you it was an accident, so I don't see the point. You'll just keep saying "I think it was on purpose" and I'll keep saying "No, it wasn't."

[Zilla]

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

[Goatrevolt]

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

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

[GIEFF]

Just because mykonian thinks the Panzer wagon fits that description does not make it so.

Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.

[Zilla]

honestly, if nobody is capable of posting a chronology, there are serious issues, and I think you guys don't even know seriously what is going on in this game. Other games I've been in have had no problem summarizing cases.

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Myk brings up that the SK is scum for wanting to lynch mafia. It's supposed to be a crazy justification for a bad vote, but everyone jumps on how poorly it is constructed. Also, the SK suggestion is taken very seriously by a few players.

Panzer gets caught up in the SK debate, DG and GIEFF debate over his opening post.

Things snowball.

Things snowball even more.

Panzer swtiches from considering Myk's opening post as serious to obviously a joke, GIEFF picks up on it, a wagon forms, Goat doesn't like the wagon because nobody seems to oppose it.

BB, SL, and Militant don't really say much.

I replace in, and because all these cases have been twisted every imaginable way, people jump on me for asking for a summary, because hey, it's easier to understand than any of the other cases around here.

I defend BB because he hadn't done anything scummy aside from a small lurking problem, and goat switched his vote for shallow reasons.

Lengthy debate over rereading vs summarizing.

Macavity is gone, suddenly nobody is going to be able to answer those standing accusations against him.

Myk performs chainsaw defense against GIEFF's allegations on Panzer.


I haven't seen much pro-town content from Myk and plenty of scummy content, my vote stands.

[Dourgrim]

@Dourgrim: What good does it do to keep bringing it up if it's not because you're upset? I think this is the 3rd or 4th time it was mentioned. It was an accident; what more do you want me to say? There's no way for me to convince you it was an accident, so I don't see the point. You'll just keep saying "I think it was on purpose" and I'll keep saying "No, it wasn't."

I don't want

you

to say anything because it's not

you

I'm trying to convince. I think it's a meaningful "mistake" (or perhaps tell) on your part, and I keep bringing it up because I think it's worth investigating. I don't see any possible way it

could

have been an accident, so I'm emphasizing it in an effort to bring it to the attention of the other players and find out if I'm the only one that sees importance in it.

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

I want to hear from qwints before I vote.

[militant]

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!

I could not agree more

What.
the.
Fuck.

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

You asked for a summary thus initiating the debate about said summary. What more is there to understand. I would have no problem being held accountable for something I had done if I were in fact responsible for that something but I didn't start the debate which is what we are arguing over now. You are quite plainly the one who started the summary debate. We are not on the other hand arguing over who continued the debate because that is obviously a different matter for which I obviously would be held accountable for but I have never stated that meta discussion was bad; that was you. As you acknowledged it got (your summary request) rebuffed so why did you not just read the thread if you were not going to receive a summary? Instead you continued the meta discussion after that acknowledgment. That is why I believe your behaviour to be hypocritical.

I agree with you though that this sort of discussion is not the most appropriate use of our time and counter productive to our efforts to catch scum. They want us preoccupied arguing "pretty much nothing" so they can do scummy stuff and try and fool the town. I suggest we cease the argument now and forget about it. It's not of great importance anyway. I don't think what you did was especially indicative of anti town allegiancces.

[Goatrevolt]

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

[Goatrevolt]

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

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

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

[militant]

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Not Quite Zilla:

/confirm

springlullaby, militant, and Dourgrim are all obvscum by this point

[GIEFF]

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

I assume you're talking about Panzer?

Faking the reason for his initial mykonian vote was intentional. The later lies and inconsistencies were not intentional. I suppose it is possible he was just genuinely confused, but he was so adamant for so long over so many posts that he knew it was a joke that I find that hard to believe. We can rule a change of heart out entirely; he didn't admit it was a serious vote until it was practically proven.

If both mykonian and Panzer are scum together, I will be very shocked.

I disagree. It is a very low possibility from a statisical standpoint, but based on the very-weird nature of Panzer's original vote for mykonian, mykonian's weird defense of it, and how vigorously mykonian has attacked my case on Panzer, I do see a connection between them.

However, it could just be one scum linking himself to a townie to either implicate that townie if the scum is lynched, or to earn pro-town points if the townie is lynched. (As an aside, I wrote lynching instead of linking the first time around and had to go back and edit it. I was thinking about the next part of my sentence

I would be a lot more surprised if they were both town than if they were both scum. But I agree with Goat that "testing this theory out" is a poor reason for a lynch. Let's just be sure to lynch a scum today, and worry about possible buddies later.

[Dourgrim]

Fair enough... and for the record, I didn't intend to

suggest

"testing the theory" with a lynch, I said that would be the only way to do so. If I had believed lynching them was the best route, I would have placed my vote.

Still waiting for qwints.

[Zilla]

Dour, you might be waiting quite a while for qwints. You would also be waiting a long time for me, if I didn't decide to get involved straight off .

i want to hear from SL, BB, and subgenius on Myk/Panzer.

[Beyond_Birthday]

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

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.

Since in this post I see a legitimate and counter arguable reason you have to vote me, let me to de-spell:

Point 1: BB may have jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of opportunity.
This is incorrect, and in fact allowing myself a mild amount of wifom, I think I would ride the wagon as long as I could and be talked of unvoting. As a scum partner, this would be perfect for distancing.
Point 2: He may have jumped off townie now unable to justify his vote.
Meh, counter productive scum play. Better is to defend Panzer, which my last posts does (oh noes! I have proven myself doing something scummy!) No, actually, here is my reasoning:
Joking around led to "Serious" discussion...about the Rving, which were ultimately illogical and fruitless. There are a few existing gems, but they are scattered among senselessness and stupidity making them appear to be tainted with the same idiocy as the quote wars and votes. My reason for voting Panzer is that Gieff appeared to have some decent points. I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.) However, this is not the specific reason I unvoted. Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.
Point 3: BB lacked real justification for unvoting.
I no longer felt the case made by Gieff was justified.

Point 4: Point 3 indicates BB was never sincere about voting Panzer.
I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no. However, wouldn't scum be sincere about lynching a townie? Hell, even bussing a really suspicious partner would hold some benefit and the obscurity of the tactic would lead to its partial dismissal. This point, therefore, lacks merit.

@

Gieff

: Meh, I didn't research. Also, does "busted" go with a meaningless suspicion cast? A vote would be stronger and makes me want to OMGUS a meaningless FoS at you.

Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed. The only way in which is should be used is to have everyone say:
LAL!!!

And then not follow through with it. EVERYONE lies, but some for really crappy or stupid reasons. For example, X is cop. X is asked his role. He claims tracker (see relevant gambit.) Someone finds out he is not tracker(let's just say rolecop), and he is lynched. Ergo, LAL fails.

@

mykonian

: Your attackon the method he pursues players is flawed. Bad logic=/=scummy. Bad logic that is contrary to your normal way of playing (via, useful meta or proof to the contrary of your vocalized or utilized thoughts)=scummy.

@

GIEFF

:
You said:
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.

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

@

Zilla

Anti-town=/=scummy. See my 1 in response to GIEFF above.

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

This is the one useful Zilla post I have found today.

/confirm

springlullaby, militant, and Dourgrim are all obvscum by this point

Why the hell are we still talking about this? Since Gieff is NOT in that list, then there is no role third party, town, or scum that can no all 3 people on the scum team. (Assuming 1/4th rule.) The only reason I attack this militant is because you use it in response to Zilla in fashion that appears to be you saying, "You're wrong it wasn't a joke." If you meant it some other way, please explain and otherwise ignore this comment.

@ Gieff's post 337:
Interesting. So, do you support of the theory that if Panzer is scum then Mykonian is scum? Or do you agree in the reverse being true? Or do you just think that it wouldn't be "that shocking?"

Also waiting for qwints

[Zilla]

I have a feeling he was picking on me for saying Myk instead if militant. :/

Yes, town can have flawed logic, but when that logic's purpose is anti-town, that is scummy. Anti-town INTENT is scummy. Accidental anti-town behavior may not be. The nature of this case hinges on whether Panzer was lying or not, and since he was talking about his own motivations for voting Myk, I'm more likely to believe that he knew what we was doing.

There's also that Panzer was flipping the fuck out on me on a misconstruction, which doesn't help him in my opinion :/.

[subgenius]

First off, I get the feeling that Zilla's strategy is mostly about throwing a bucket of feces at the wall and waiting to see what sticks. How she could attack Goat so adamantly and with so many different accusations while fully admitting that her main motive for voting for him was because he didn't want to write a summary is amazing. I wouldn't call it scummy, but I wouldn't describe it as helpful either.

Here's something I would like explained from myko: (post 306)

Panzerjager wrote:
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?

What exactly are you trying to communicate to Panzer here? There's already some discussion about a possible Panzer/Myko pairing. What did you mean by this? When I first read it, it immediately occurred to me that you could be trying to remind a partner not to become too involved in mutual defense.

Also, GRIEFF, concerning post 305:

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:

BeyondBirthday wrote:
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

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

GIEFF wrote:
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.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

Panzerjager wrote:

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.

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

[GIEFF]

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed.

I'm not talking about wiki generalities; I've explained why lying about your reasoning for a vote is scummy way too many times to repeat it. I am not saying "lynch all liars," I am saying "lynch those who lie about their reasons for voting."

@ Gieff's post 337:
Interesting. So, do you support of the theory that if Panzer is scum then Mykonian is scum? Or do you agree in the reverse being true? Or do you just think that it wouldn't be "that shocking?"

I do think that Panzer flipping scum would make mykonian go up the scum-scale (and make dejkha/zilla go down it), but it doesn't really do us much good to speculate about it now.

@GIEFF:
You said:
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.

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.


Your answers strike me as someone desperate to try to prove me wrong rather than someone genuinely trying to understand my point, which I don't think is so complicated that it should need repeating as many times as I have had to repeat it.

[Zilla]

First off, I get the feeling that Zilla's strategy is mostly about throwing a bucket of feces at the wall and waiting to see what sticks. How she could attack Goat so adamantly and with so many different accusations while fully admitting that her main motive for voting for him was because he didn't want to write a summary is amazing. I wouldn't call it scummy, but I wouldn't describe it as helpful either.

This whole town must hate accountability, and I'm oh-so-unhelpful for trying to get some. Lord, what a sin it is to attack someone reluctant to provide their own opinions. It can't be helpful at all to see if someone is being inconsistent, ESPECIALLY when that has already happened with Panzer, and especially given that people's opinions have suddenly and inexplicably changed at some points in this game.

Woe be to the person who wants to know where everyone stands, but fear them not, for they may be shunned if you merely tell them to "read the thread." You can go unaccountable as long as you wish.

I don't buy GIEFF's "townie" slip argument, it's a weak argument on a weak slip. I similarly don't buy the other argument of using words like "truly" and "honest." There's just too much difference in communication style from person to person for something that to be a scumtell, and I've never seen something like that actually point to scum.

I find it ironic Mykonian accuses Panzer of defending him, considering he's also covered for Panzer.

[Goatrevolt]

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

eh heh heh...NO.

Vote Panzerjager

This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

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

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

Oh snap!

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

So, to clarify my points on BB:

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

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

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

So yeah, I think he's scum.

[Goatrevolt]

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

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

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

[PJ.]

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

So let me get this straight, my "active lurking" aka parroting aka something you said I do when I'm town and 2 semantics issues? Gieff, I'm starting to get a very scummy vibe from you and you are definently tunneling me if you think I'd be a better lunch the BB or Zilla.

[GIEFF]

Failing to provide original content after you said you would to avoid a lynch is scummy, all metas aside. The fact that you appear to act similarly as town in a small sample size of games isn't enough to overturn that fact, it just tempers it somewhat. And as I said, that isn't the main part of my case, it's just additional reasons.

You also lied for a long period of time, and over multiple posts; there was a lot more cognitive dissonance from you than from BB.

I didn't say BB or Zilla, I said BB or mykonian. Is the fact that you changed the name significant?

[militant]

Why the hell are we still talking about this? Since Gieff is NOT in that list, then there is no role third party, town, or scum that can no all 3 people on the scum team. (Assuming 1/4th rule.) The only reason I attack this militant is because you use it in response to Zilla in fashion that appears to be you saying, "You're wrong it wasn't a joke." If you meant it some other way, please explain and otherwise ignore this comment.

I only mentioned it because Zilla mistakingly said it was SL,

myk

and DG who GIEFF made the comment about and it was actually SL, myself and DG.

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Nothing big, I just wanted to clarify that for Zilla so she didn't make the mistake again. I don't think I was picking on you although I apoligise if my tone lead you to beleive that.