Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[PJ.]

Yes GIEFF because I don't see how Mykonian is scummy. Also I don't understand why you do.

[GIEFF]

You don't see how mykonian is scummy, so you misrepresented my position?

I don't feel like reiterating the case right now. Read back through my posts if you're interested.

Gieff, I'm starting to get a very scummy vibe from you

Interesting use of the word "started." You tried to buddy up with me, almost as if to say "stop throwing aggression my way, and I'll stop throwing it yours." Do you think you're getting a scummy vibe from me because I am still going after you?

[mykonian]

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.

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum. I thought first your case weak, what you called defending, but you keep hiding behind that case. Keep pushing for a lie that is not a scumtell.

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.

you can't be convinced, as you believe that lie is an absolute scumtell.

@

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.

I mainly attacked the way he tries to push his case that is not

that

strong.

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.

it was a rhetorical question. I accuse Panzer of defending me. Zilla´s vote is quite ridiculous, her case also, but the fact that she adds as reason: "but mainly because he asked me to" as a reason, it is clear that this doesn'd deserve an aggresive defense. It can't be a serious vote. Panzer is far too eager to prove that he was wrong before.

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

I'm not a very aggressive player when I know too little.

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."

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

And what is your case on me and BB? What is so obviously scummy about us? that we don't agree with your "great case"?

[Zilla]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.

[GIEFF]

You don't appear interested in reaching consensus with me, mykonian. You just repeat your old points which I have already answered. Which of the four points do you disagree with?

you can't be convinced, as you believe that lie is an absolute scumtell.

I am asking you to convince me. I am asking you to actually take the time to understand the point I'm making, why it relates to the difference between scum and townies, and to respond accordingly. You haven't done that, even after I tried to lay it out into four easy points, to see which one you disagree with. You are more interested in saying "you are wrong, GIEFF" than trying to show me why your point of view is correct and mine is not.

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum.

So you don't think scum-GIEFF would ever bus or distance scum-Panzer? Is your suspicion of me really so strong that you are making nested assumptions based on it? I think Panzer is scum, but not so sure that I'm ready to proclaim with certainty that someone he strongly attacks is town. Was you saying "mislynch" a slip?

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

You are again missing the point. Scum need to lie for EVERY SINGLE SERIOUS VOTE THEY GIVE. They say "I think Player X is scummy because..." but the because is always a lie, because the real reason they think someone is scummy or townie is BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW. Panzer was caught in an inconsistency about trying to explain the reasons he gave for his vote, and this is because the reasons he gave were not actually true.

Scum have plenty to gain by lying, and I've repeated it many times. How do you think a scum should explain the reasoning for a vote without lying? "I think we should lynch player X because he isn't one of my scumbuddies?" What? Panzer's vote was SERIOUS, not a joke, and not random. Lying about it is a big deal.

And what is your case on me and BB? What is so obviously scummy about us? that we don't agree with your "great case"?

Obvoiusly not. I have been more than clear about the reasons I think you and B_B are scummy. Either you're not reading the thread or you're being willfully ignorant in an attempt to make me look scummy.




Beyond_Birthday's scumminess:
Post 350

mykonian's scumminess:
Post 193

[mykonian]

You don't appear interested in reaching consensus with me, mykonian. You just repeat your old points which I have already answered. Which of the four points do you disagree with?

Then I must admit that I don't know what way you want to go with this question.

GIEFF, the main point of the case is that Panzer lied. This is mainly from the start, the confusion if he was serious about me or not. He is not completely clear in this.

But I can't see benefit for scum in this. That's why I think it can never be a scumtell. You argue that scum needs lies to vote for somebody, I say that that is only needed when votes are required to be very well reasoned and strong (not early day 1).

And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.

Scum doesn't need to lie for a random vote. Scum can also point out valid scumtells. The only lie is their conclusion: they catch a towny.

And for the cases on me and BB: they seem mostly induced by the fact that we don't agree with you, with BB the extra point that he also voted and unvoted panzer.

[subgenius]

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.

Jesus, I wasn't even talking about whether or not your summary request was valid. I'm just trying to say that tearing into a player like a pit bull with a laundry list of grievances while admitting that only one grievance actually has anything to do with the hostility isn't all that helpful. Neither is this unwarranted sarcasm.

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

I'm not so interested in whether or not it's ironic. Do you think it's scummy? Was Mykonian trying to nudge his scum partner away from defending him too much?

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?

Oops, honest mistake. I think I must have been doing this the whole game.

As for BB, I think the points made about the reasoning behind unvoting Panzer are pretty interesting. He certainly did not adequately explain it, and it would make more sense for scum to hop off a building wagon than a townie, especially with the level of commitment that BB expressed for the vote. I did a partial re-read a few days ago of the first few pages of the game, and I too noticed that he has a habit of posting other people's opinions and merely posting an agreement.

As for scum, I'm still a little attached to the Panzer wagon, and I think it's probably because I think the townie slip was real. This, combined with Mykonian interactions continues to add just enough fuel to keep me leaning towards a Panzer/myko scum pair. I think the case against BB is pretty solid, and he'd definitely make my top two list, but I still like Panzer. One other benefit to lynching Panzer, is I believe his alignment would tell us more than BB's.

In my post towards GIEFF, I was mostly trying to draw conclusions from GIEFF's own posts. I don't necessarily agree with those posts. The GIEFF scale of lying and the Subgenius scale of lying differ somewhat in that mine allows for people to change their minds sometimes. I don't believe in LAL, and I wouldn't characterize BB's contradictions as lies per se. I still think his disengagement from Panzer was fishy, but more because it was inadequately explained than due to any issues with lying.

[Zilla]

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

This isn't true in the slightest; any townie can draw incorrect conclusions and set up a mislynch, and lying for scum just puts them on the line and in the open later for searching later. I also disagree with the stance that "there are no good targets anymore," I think this game is full of them. Just about every player could have a rather solid case built against them.

Beyond Birthday hasn't participated and has numerous 'neutral' reads on people, as if he's setting up for ways to gain reputation depending on how the town views change.

Zilla refused to read the thread when she replaced in, and her predecessor had some "interesting" views.

Dourgrim was tunneling on GIEFF for a while and has gone lurking at some points.

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Goatrevolt constantly discusses meta and detracts from active scumhunting, while appearing to present an "aggressive" case that is actually based on very little actual information. Also refused very loudly to provide a summary of his opinion on the current state of the game.

qwints hasn't responded except to say he's reading the thread, and MacavityLock had some "interesting" opinions himself.

Militant has avoided a solid position on the centerstage players, leaving an out for him, and is the sole voter for ting=), which is still his random vote. I'd say he's an "active lurker."

Mykonian's conduct early game was sporadic and scummy, and his arguments generally are weak, and he's played defense for Panzer on logic that he hasn't explained (I'd like to hear why he thinks Panzer is clean). His vote is on Beyond Birthday for "being annoying" and having "too frequent of notes." Even his "scumhunting post" is full of uncommitted opinions that leave him easy ways out.

Panzer... Do I even need to say anything? The whole "reason for voting Myk" debacle, general jumpy conduct, poor logic, possible pairing with Myk, and a generally scummy playstyle (attempts at diffusing arguments by buddying, GIEFF's point about "I'll step down if you will," intent behind some posts)

SpringLulliby hasn't participated very much.

Subgenius hasn't really been committed on any stance he's given, and seems rather detatched from the main events.

Ting=) ... Not much to say about him aside from infrequent posting, but he's not really "lurking" and most of the time his posts have content. All I can say is that nobody has really looked too deeply into him.




This is not my standing on everyone, but an exercise to see where cases "can" be built, to show that scum don't even have to actively push for a lynch as long as a townie gets the wrong idea about someone.

[Dourgrim]

Three things:

1) I know it's only been two days since the last one, but

MOD: vote count

please? I'm very curious to know where everyone's votes are right now.
1a) Who's the one with the vote-counting script? Can you please post your most recent results in the thread?

2) I am likely to get prodded every weekend for inactivity, since I do most of my posting during the week from work. I own/operate my own DJ business in addition to my day job and so am very busy on the weekends, not to mention planning my wedding and trying to get crap done around the house. Sorry.

3) Why have we still not heard from qwints since his "catching up" post?

[subgenius]

And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.

This makes sense if you're talking about distancing, but not really bussing. He's going over the top if he's simply distancing, but if he's bussing, he's doing a killer job of it.

[Zilla]

Jesus, I wasn't even talking about whether or not your summary request was valid. I'm just trying to say that tearing into a player like a pit bull with a laundry list of grievances while admitting that only one grievance actually has anything to do with the hostility isn't all that helpful. Neither is this unwarranted sarcasm.

Sorry, I got caught up in the "Zilla vs the world" mentality that everyone thought my request was stupid/scummy, and I basically got a bit enraged that I was being called it again, when you were just talking about my reaction to GoatRevolt.

Really, though, I'm only sorry about the GoatRevotl thing insofar as that I didn't do it to everyone who said the same thing. It was unfair of me to really single him out over it when he was assisted in that by Mykonian and Beyond Birthday.

I'm not so interested in whether or not it's ironic. Do you think it's scummy? Was Mykonian trying to nudge his scum partner away from defending him too much?

Yes on the scummy, not necessarily on the "nudge his scum partner." Just about any time I say "Isn't this ironic/strange/inconsistent" it's implying I think it's scummy. I don't think it's neccesarily a motion to a scum partner so much as trying to shake the image that they are paired by accusing Panzer of chainsaw defense. The inconsistency is that if you read Myk in isolation, he's played the whole game defending Panzer.

[mykonian]

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

This isn't true in the slightest; any townie can draw incorrect conclusions and set up a mislynch, and lying for scum just puts them on the line and in the open later for searching later. I also disagree with the stance that "there are no good targets anymore," I think this game is full of them. Just about every player could have a rather solid case built against them.

Sorry, this is my bad English. What I tried to say was that scum doesn't need to lie early in the game, because reasons won't be looked at that much, and only in the later game, when targets disappear, they could have to resort to lying.

We agree here.

[mykonian]

And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.

This makes sense if you're talking about distancing, but not really bussing. He's going over the top if he's simply distancing, but if he's bussing, he's doing a killer job of it.

But day one? Right from the start? if panzer came up scum, that would be a little too much of a coincedence, wouldn't it?

if you read Myk in isolation, he's played the whole game defending Panzer.

and attacking GIEFF (but I guess you call this chainsaw defence, you just can't see that I don't like GIEFF's case), and asking you to reread, when all you were doing was accusing everyone without knowing.

[GIEFF]

@mykonain.

ONCE AGAIN, Panzer's lies were not just early in the game, but throughout the thread. And ONCE AGAIN, scum does have reason to lie. And ONCE AGAIN, which of the four points do you disagree with? Your failure to answer or even pay attention to what I am saying is distracting for both me and for everybody else.


I think we may be falling into the trap of only focusing on what the most active people are saying, because they have a lot more words to focus on. Macavitylock/qwints and ting =) are still flying under the radar. Macavitylock especially, as I think he was quite scummy before he went inactive.

1a) Who's the one with the vote-counting script? Can you please post your most recent results in the thread?

Here you go:

By Character:

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF Post 19
Unvote, Vote:Mykonian Post 36
FoS:Ting Post 44
Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby Post 158
FoS:Gieff Post 225
Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday, Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday Post 265
Unvote:Zilla, Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday Post 296
Unvote. Vote:Zilla Post 298

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager Post 20
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock Post 77
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday Post 285

mykonian

vote GIEFF Post 24
unvote, vote GIEFF Post 55
FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim Post 137
vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF Post 241
unvote vote Beyond_birthday Post 251
unvote vote GIEFF Post 312

militant

Vote ting =) Post 25
Unvote Post 279

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock Post 26
unvote. Vote:Panzerjager Post 38

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim Post 27
Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer Post 47
Unvote Post 125

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager Post 28
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 33
FoS: springlullaby Post 40
unvote: GIEFF Post 80
FoS: mykonian, vote: Panzer Post 95
FoS: GIEFF Post 217
unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF Post 219

subgenius

vote:Militant Post 29
FoS: Panzer Post 167
unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager Post 170

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian Post 31
Unvotes Post 71
Unvote Post 234

springlullaby

Vote subgenius Post 39
Vote djekha Post 97
Unvote, vote djekha Post 98
Unvote Post 270

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
FOS Post 275
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim Post 54
FOS Panzerjager Post 96
unvote, Vote Panzerjager Post 105
FoS mykonian Post 193
FoS militant Post 244
Not a random vote, HoS Beyond_Birthday Post 305

By Chronology:

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 1

kloud1516

vote: kloud unvote
Post 19

Panzerjager

Vote:GIEFF
Post 20

Goatrevolt

Vote: Panzerjager
Post 24

mykonian

vote GIEFF
Post 25

militant

Vote ting =)
Post 26

ting =)

Vote: MacavityLock
Post 27

MacavityLock

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 28

Dourgrim

vote: Panzerjager
Post 29

subgenius

vote:Militant
Post 31

Beyond_Birthday

Vote mykonian
Post 33

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 36

Panzerjager

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian
Post 38

ting =)

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager
Post 39

springlullaby

Vote subgenius
Post 40

Dourgrim

FoS: springlullaby
Post 44

Panzerjager

FoS:Ting
Post 46

dejkha

FoS: Dourgrim
Post 47

MacavityLock

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer
Post 54

GIEFF

Vote: Dourgrim
Post 55

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF
Post 71

Beyond_Birthday

Unvotes
Post 77

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Post 80

Dourgrim

unvote: GIEFF
Post 95

Dourgrim

FoS: mykonian vote: Panzer
Post 96

GIEFF

FOS Panzerjager
Post 97

springlullaby

Vote djekha
Post 98

springlullaby

Unvote, vote djekha
Post 105

GIEFF

unvote Vote Panzerjager
Post 125

MacavityLock

Unvote
Post 137

mykonian

FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim
Post 158

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby
Post 167

subgenius

FoS: Panzer
Post 170

subgenius

unvote <BR>vote: Panzerjager
Post 193

GIEFF

FoS mykonian
Post 217

Dourgrim

FoS: GIEFF
Post 219

Dourgrim

unvote: Panzerjager <BR><BR>vote: GIEFF
Post 225

Panzerjager

FoS:Gieff
Post 234

Beyond_Birthday

Unvote
Post 241

mykonian

vote Beyond_birthday. <BR><BR>FoS GIEFF
Post 244

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 251

mykonian

unvote vote Beyond_birthday
Post 259

Zilla

Vote: Goatrevolt
Post 265

Panzerjager

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday
Post 270

springlullaby

Unvote
Post 275

Zilla

FOS
Post 279

militant

Unvote
Post 285

Goatrevolt

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday
Post 296

Panzerjager

Unvote:Zilla Unvote: Vote: Beyond Birthday
Post 297

Zilla

unvote: goatrevolt Vote: Mykonian
Post 298

Panzerjager

Unvote. Vote:Zilla
Post 305

GIEFF

Not a random vote HoS Beyond_Birthday
Post 312

mykonian

unvote vote GIEFF

[springlullaby]

Posting to say that I'm behind and need a couple of day to catch.

[mykonian]

@mykonain.

ONCE AGAIN, Panzer's lies were not just early in the game, but throughout the thread. And ONCE AGAIN, scum does have reason to lie. And ONCE AGAIN, which of the four points do you disagree with? Your failure to answer or even pay attention to what I am saying is distracting for both me and for everybody else

We are not getting there by SCREAMING.

GIEFF, I don't understand what those four points are, you are talking about, and that is why I said that I didn't know what way you wanted to go with that question.

On the lying: as far as I recall, it is the contradiction between first a serious vote, and later making it a half joke vote, am I right?

Then we know what we are both talking about.

Then the following, because we clearly disagree there: you say lieing is a universal scumtell, because scum needs to lie for their reasons.

You get to this, because you say that no matter what, the conclusion must be wrong: the one they vote is town.

So you prove that the lie is in the conclusion, but it is the logic that leads to the conclusion that you are testing for lying.

and scum doesn't need to lie about that logic. They can point out scummy acts done by town, because town is not perfect, and still end up with the wrong conclusion. So, esspecially when nobody knows a thing, and the standard of the votes is not high, it is useless to lie with the logic, not only with the conclusion. That's why it is bad play, no matter what allignment the liar in this case has.

[GIEFF]

Sorry, I don't mean to be screaming; I am just getting frustrated that we don't seem to be understanding each other.

On the lying: as far as I recall, it is the contradiction between first a serious vote, and later making it a half joke vote, am I right?

Then we know what we are both talking about.

Yes, I agree.

Then the following, because we clearly disagree there: you say lieing is a universal scumtell, because scum needs to lie for their reasons.

I don't think all lying is a universal scumtell, and I never said it was. I do think lying about the reasoning for a vote is scummy, and have explained why that is.

You get to this, because you say that no matter what, the conclusion must be wrong: the one they vote is town.

I'm confused about this part. I don't think I said that? What I'm saying is that no matter what, the reasons presented are not the real reasons used to determine alignment. They KNOW alignment already.

and scum doesn't need to lie about that logic. They can point out scummy acts done by town, because town is not perfect, and still end up with the wrong conclusion. So, esspecially when nobody knows a thing, and the standard of the votes is not high, it is useless to lie with the logic, not only with the conclusion. That's why it is bad play, no matter what allignment the liar in this case has.

You keep talking about good and bad logic, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Townies can use poor logic, but they will believe it to be valid. Scum can use flawless logic, but it has no bearing on their vote, as they are voting for their own reasons.

I think that a scum using flawless logic is still lying. Even if nothing false is said, there is a misrepresentation going on. The scum claims "I am voting for Player X for reason Y." Even if reason Y is 100% and logical, that is NOT the real reason the scum is voting for Player X. THAT is where the lie is.

Do you see the distinction? It's not whether the logic is poor or valid, it's whether the person presenting the logic actually used it to come to a decision about alignment. Townies DO use the logic to decide alignment, and scum do not.


Townies use logic to determine alignment, and scum do not.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count V

Panzerjager

(3): ting=), GIEFF, subgenius

GIEFF

(2): mykonian, Dourgrim

Zilla

(1): Panzerjager

mykonian

(1): Zilla

Beyond_Birthday

(1): Goatrevolt

Not Voting:

qwints, Beyond_Birthday, springlullaby, militant

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

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

[Dourgrim]

Thank you, O Benevolent Mod! Thank you, O Not-Always-Benevolent GIEFF!

It seems to me we have a lot of confusion in this game regarding the reasoning behind people's votes. I suspect a couple of factors, including language barriers, posting styles, and "walls of text" that can sometimes obfuscate intended meanings. Therefore, I have a "Zilla-like" request for the players who currently have voted for someone: it seems to me that anyone who's

really convinced

of the reasoning behind their vote should be able to present the reasoning behind the vote in a

one or two sentence post

(including links to relevant posts if needed). I am aware that this will cause some oversimplifying of detail-oriented cases, but I'm hoping that the links proviso above will allow for clarification of the one or two sentences without resorting to long walls of text.

I'll go first: I believe the GIEFF's reasoning behind Panzer's "lies" regarding his vote are overblown (even though I do tend to agree with the logic itself), and I think the "Dourscum" incident (may it live forever in infamy ) was an attempt to influence the other players in the game in a potentially dishonest manner rather than an honest mistake (because I don't believe it could have possibly been an honest mistake).

(If anyone wants me to post links backing up the above statements, I will attempt to comply, although I am having a stupid busy day at work and it might not be until tomorrow.)

[GIEFF]

I believe the reason Panzer lied about the way he interpreted mykonian's vote is that he never believed the reasoning he presented in the first place. He wasn't using logic to hunt scum, he was faking logic to make it look like he was hunting scum. He has posted little original content, but is happy to parrot others' opinions. He called dejkha a "townie."

[mykonian]

OK GIEFF, I understand what you are saying. For town, reasons are part of hunting for scum, for scum they are an excuse to make their votes.

Now we are not talking about lies anymore, we are talking about motivations behind a vote. Can you prove me that Panzer his motivations for his vote on me are not for hunting scum, but are an excuse for a vote on me? (I think I know where this will go, but when it is 23.40, I'm not going to try)

[subgenius]

I'll go first: I believe the GIEFF's reasoning behind Panzer's "lies" regarding his vote are overblown (even though I do tend to agree with the logic itself), and I think the "Dourscum" incident (may it live forever in infamy ) was an attempt to influence the other players in the game in a potentially dishonest manner rather than an honest mistake (because I don't believe it could have possibly been an honest mistake).

Speaking as a player who apparently mistook a player's name for 10+ pages of posts, I completely believe GIEFF when he says he made an honest mistake. He hasn't resorted to anything similar in any of his other posts, and just based on his fixation on proper logic and argument I think he would be just as irritated Dourgrim if someone was doing something similar to him.

I agree that a succinct restatement of people's cases might help, especially from some of the less vocal players.

I still think Panzer is most scummy. I'm not a big subscriber to the whole lying case, but I think there might be something to his town slip, I think his interactions with myko are fishy, and his attempt to buddy up to GIEFF (I'm still typing GRIEFF and having to edit myself, dammit) is a bit suspicious.

[Zilla]

Myk's SK-slip and chainsaw defense of Panzer, and the inherent interactions between Myk and Panzer.

Funny how people listen to Dour .

Also, Dour, I have to say your reasons for voting GIEFF aren't very good. I, too, think some of his points aren't right and that his case is a bit bloated, but I don't think that's a good reason to vote him. I also agree that the Dourscum thing is VERY dubious as far as a mistake goes, but also, it's not worthy of a vote, no matter how little I believe that it was a "slip."

[Zilla]

EBWOP: Also Myk's reaction to my request for a summary (seems subgenius is now in support too.)

[subgenius]

Funny how people listen to Dour .

To be fair, we all know that Dour has read the entire thread already.