Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Rishi]

Rishi: Is my case against Rhinox valid enough for a vote? Is Korts' and iamusername and rest of crapwagon's arguments valid enough for a vote on me?

I don't know about Rhinox. Lately, I usually see appeals to emotion as towntells rather than scumtells. Good scum have icewater running through their veins and are usually a lot more careful about what they say. I also have the advantage of having modded Rhinox both as scum and town, and his posts seemed more crafted as scum (though – I'll admit that I just skimmed his posts a lot when I was modding) than as town. So I'm leaning towards Rhinox as town at the moment. Since a lot of others are suspicious though, I think I need to do a re-read on Rhinox.

As for you, I'll be honest. I am having a tough time getting a read on you. I might look at one of your other games when I have time.

If every way I've brought up still doesn't pass your bar for necessity, try this question on for size.

Does an SK necessarily have an easier time winning this game if we are to ignore (delibrately ignore) his probable presence until we can prove, without a doubt, that he exists?

If we managed to get to Day 3, and by some combination of Doctor saves, double shots, and any other interventional behavior, only one kill has gone through each night, is it then still unhelpful to discuss an SK?

I don't know if an SK has an easier time if we ignore him – SKs hardly ever win as-is. If there were only one kill each night, I wouldn't think SK discussion should be at the forefront on Day 3.

What I don't get is that, why is this all that you're discussing? And not only that, for the most part, you're discussing whether or not we should be discussing the SK and devoting a lot of space to it. Yes, I realize that a lot of people are asking you questions about it, but your answer to all the questions is pretty much the same. You are the one who is choosing to answer in a long-winded and repetitive manner. I can't believe that you can't take a step back and see how unhelpful all of this is.

Others have given good reasons for what you're doing. I particularly like Bio's 182.

Vote: RedCoyote

[iamausername]

Really? I think there is a clear distinction between scummy and suspicious. Its the nature of the game to be suspicious of everyone until we are given definitive reasons to believe otherwise. I would still be somewhat suspicious of even the most pro-town player in the game if they're not confirmed town, even if they never did a single thing I could call scummy.

Regarding bio, I'm suspicious of all the early talk about the sk, but i wouldn't call it scummy right now.

If all you mean by 'suspicious' is "It's possible they're scum, because it's always possible that somebody is scum", then why bother pointing out specific behaviours as 'suspicious'? Isn't everything anyone says 'suspicious', by your definition?

^Not rhetorical.

However, I will say that I've been trying something new in some of my games that hasn't exactly been working... I feel as a town player, I should always be able to identify who is "scummiest". As such, I should always be able to place my vote for who I feel is scummiest.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Sometimes he's longwinded, and sometimes he can't get to the point faster (usually when he's not lying about something it would seem to me.

I haven't played with him as town

, but sometimes he's lying about something and sometimes he's addressing points that aren't lies. In retrospect those are less longwinded). The quote sort of represents the game as a whole really.

Bolded point; this necessarily makes a meta-read less realiable, because without a town version to compare it to, it will be hard to separate the things he does because he's scum from the things he does because he's Coyote.

Point in general; OK. I'm still wary of the possibility of pops using meta as an excuse to vote Coyote without any real case, but having at least something of pops' though process divulged alleviates my doubts somewhat. And noting bionic's suggestion that we let pops go with slightly sketchy explanations for now, but that he'd better be prepared to expand on them if Coyote turns up town; that's a good idea.

I could definitely do with giving Newbie 685 a more thorough read for pops, Coyote & Vi metas (the last one not for this game, obv.), and I'll look into the "he waffles when he's lying" theory.

Moreover, I am implying that cases on Day 1 are necessarily weaker than cases on succeeding days. Do you disagree with that?

No, but now I'm wondering why you brought it up in the first place:

Get with the program Korts. This is Day 1. No "superior cases" are being made.

"Korts, there are no stronger cases being made than my case on Rhinox, because cases made on Day 1 are necessarily weaker than cases on succeeding days." Either it's a total non-sequitur, or you're claiming that your case against Rhinox has, in fact, BEEN SENT BACK IN TIME FROM A FUTURE DAY.

I mean, that quote in general is just really, really bad. It's ridiculously condescending for no good reason, and it's just arbitrarily dismissing all other cases out of hand. The former might not be scummy, but the latter certainly is.

On day one night actions only concern those who have them. Do I see some subtle role-fishing here?

I was pushed into saying it. I was content with leaving it at a disagreement over whether or not setup discussion was good for the town on Day 1, but Rhinox and Rishi both insisted that I give them a reason as to why having multiple killing parties makes a determining factor in this game. This forced my hand into talking about things I would rather not have talked about.

I'm wondering why you're pressuring me because of this, and not Rhinox or Rishi.

What.

Let me just get this straight. Your rolefishing is not scummy because Rhinox and Rishi forced you into it by asking you to defend your position, and in fact they are the scummy ones, because I guess they must have anticipated that your explanations would be rolefishing and therefore they were in fact asking you to defend your position in order to rolefish by proxy? That's your defence?

I wish I could do this without being accused of rolefishing... so, hypothetically, and rhetorically, I'm a watcher, or jailer, or doc... I could assume there is only mafia, I could assume there is mafia + sk, or I can assume nothing about the mafia roles other than whats possible... I don't see how any of my actions change by assuming there is an sk, compared to not assuming one...

I mean, I'm sure whoever is mafia loves your argument right now about sks... get the town paranoid about an sk, so maybe the town PR's spend tonight looking for the ghost sk instead of looking for mafia, or looking for scum in general.

So, these two quotes are kind of contradictory. In one, you're arguing that power roles will act the same whether there's an SK or not, but in the other you're saying that Coyote is helping the scum by sending the power roles on an SK hunt. How does that work?

I,

bionicchop2

iamausername, solemnly swear to acknowledge a distinct possibility we have multiple killing roles. At no point during this game will I forget this possibility. During my decision making process for hunting scum, I will constantly ask myself how a 2nd killing party would affect the decision I am about to make.

A real, honest to god day one quicklynch will not happen outside of a newbie game, and even then I'm not convinced it will happen.

Oh, It happens. Not that I think there was ever a need to worry about it in

this

game.

This question is pure fluff and could not be used in any manner of scum hunting.

Then you take the position that self-voting is inconsequential to a game, correct?

This question is pure fluff and could not be used in any manner of scum hunting.

Then who implied that we should assume there isn't an SK?

The implication that "we don't know what the mod does, cannot assume there is an SK". Do you want that post?

Not assuming there is an SK =/= Assuming there is not an SK.

I'm sure this has been said over and over.

Unvote, Vote: RedCoyote

[Vi]

Vote Count:

RedCoyote (L-2) ~ Huntress, bionicchop2, popsofctown, Rishi, iamausername

Rhinox (L-4) ~ Jahudo, RedCoyote, OhGodMyLife
popsofctown (L-5) ~ Korts,

iamausername,

SpyreX

Korts (L-7) ~

OhGodMyLife

Minimum (L-7)

Not Voting:

My Milked Eek, Rhinox
[size=0]bionicchop2 - 0 | Huntress - 0 | iamausername - 1 | Jahudo - 0 | Korts - 0 | My Milked Eek - 3 - PROD1 0 | OhGodMyLife - 0 - PROD1 2 | popsofctown - 0 | RedCoyote - 0 | Rhinox - 0 | Rishi - 0 | SpyreX - 0[/size]

First Deadline Review: Saturday, Feb 14 2009
Current Deadline: Wednesday, Feb 18 2009

-----

Extra vote count because stuff is happening, and because I have too much of a headache to do much else atm.

[popsofctown]

Oh, i got you beat username, this quicklynch isn't even based on a tell:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 78&start=0

I still think RC is scummy. His defense is scummy too.

[Rhinox]

OGML 195)

Given that Rhinox's posts up to that point (and, well always) are basically little novellas, and he had had something to say on just about everything else that had happened in the game, his complete lack of interest in what I had said about you was something I found telling.

I've already responded to this once. After you take my response into account, I'll clarify anything you still need clarified.

I have to hope this has been discussed pretty heavily by now, but wtf Rhinox, you're defending yourself entirely with appeal to emotion, and you're simultaneously using flattery on everyone else in the game.

This gets you top marks on my scum report card. I'll hold off til I finish reading, but based on this alone you should hang today.

Point conceded. Whats said is said, and trying to defend this point any further will only continue to look like like appeals/flattery, etc.

Here, Rhinox specifically works on flattering bio by appealing to his authority on the subject. Silly padawan.

Actually, you missed the whole point of that statement - That i missed the obvious corrolary to my theory that sk will alter their play if they're aware the town is focused on them - that mafia will alter their play and possibly relax if they think the sk is the focus. This is the best point I head yet about why the talk about the sk has been OK.

OGML 196)

And this was my issue with what Korts did, which you never seemed to find interesting enough to comment on. It doesn't say anything about alignment, thus making it an ideal play for scum.

I've already responded to this once (allegedly ignoring korts). After you take my response into account, I'll clarify anything you still need clarified.

OGML 198)

Ah, the specter of a quicklynch. If thats not enough to scare people off your wagon, gosh I just don't know what is.

I've got news for you. A real, honest to god day one quicklynch will not happen outside of a newbie game, and even then I'm not convinced it will happen. Whats going on now is by no means quick, and there has been more than enough content generated up to this point to offset whatever theoretical devastating repercussions of a quicklynch are brought up when someone has no other way to get people to stop voting for them.
---------------------
stallin' and stallin' and stallin'

Its in the interest of my win condition to prevent my lynch regardless of my allignment. I feel the wagon on my was because of my initial controdiction - If I would have tried to ignore it ever happened and moved on, that would have been scummy. Honestly defending it was also viewed as scummy. I could have BSed some excuse that wouldn't have looked as scummy (probably), but it would have been fabricating a lie only meant to save myself. If I'm lynched, it was decided on Page 3 (-ish... somewhere around there). No matter how I acted afterwords, there was no erasing the scumminess. Of course, in the last 6 pages there has been a lot of opinions about it, which would be very helpful tomorrow if I'm lynched and my allignment is revealed. I just hope that the town utilizes the information, and it isn't minimized by the argument that "Rhinox was an idiot, any town player would have found him scummy and lynched him, so theres no reliable way to find scum on his wagon".

Re Rhinox 181: My meta of you as scum is that you're good. My meta of you as town is that you're good. So, similar to how you picked up on Vi in Mafia 87 for inconsistencies, the fact that your appeal to emotion to the Nth degree defense here is horrendous, is an inconsistency with your usual standard of play. You yourself explained why this may be so - its your first game with multiple scum partners, and certainly your first game without a self-destructive scum partner. Thus, the differences.

So what will your new conclusion be when I show up town tomorrow morning? (hint: don't you think that even a good player can have a bad game?)

RC 199)

I disagree with this. I think the town should constantly be aware of how many people are left, what the worst possible number of scum there are, what roles they are working with, etc...

This should all be on a townie's (or really even a scum's) mind before they vote to lynch, Day 1 or not.

But you can do that without assuming anything about factions... in a mini, I always assume there are 4 total scum.

I have, but you're not willing to say that you agree/disagree with me (you'd prefer to talk in circles).

I have, but you're not willing to say that you agree/disagree with me (you'd prefer to talk in circles).

Without being an ass, I think you have been asked some questions that you haven't answered clearly/dodged skillfully.

Seeing as how I'm part of the town, doesn't my opinion deserve the same weight as anyone elses?

Sure does... but you seem to be incinuating that you're opinion is more important.

(emphasis added).

You were being sarcastic here, correct?

I was actually trying to express suprise at you saying the purpose of the entire sk conversation was to warn town PR's about the presence of an sk... Perhaps I implied a bit much in the sentence you bolded, but you also misrepped me by saying that I thought it was the strongest scum tell in the game so far...

Rhinox 171 wrote:
I mean, I'm sure whoever is mafia loves your argument right now about sks... get the town paranoid about an sk, so maybe the town PR's spend tonight looking for the ghost sk instead of looking for mafia, or looking for scum in general.

RC wrote:
Do you think that's what I'm trying to do?

No I don't think that was you're intention... I think it would be too risky to do if you were mafia. But I do feel it is an unfortunate side effect to the conversation.

It's passive-aggressive. You were saying that you haven't given anyone a reason to trust what you said.

When people say things like that about themselves, I get worried. I get worried because a player knows whether or not he should be trusted or shouldn't.

If you don't believe people should trust you, why should I?

Ironically, this sort of thing pretty much cost the town the game in my most recent completed game. I said something to the effect of not trusting my own scum-hunting ability, so the obvtown player with the most town influence didn't trust me either when I was trying to make a case that actually was on the last scum remaining... the last scum ended up winning...

I'm not voting you based on any of this SK stuff. I'm voting you based on WIFOM, your attempts at pairing people off, and because of these little passive-aggressive manipulations you've been using to get people to feel sorry for you.

Ok, I'll go through these 1 by 1:

use of WIFOM:

I concede that a lot of my defense is WIFOM and thus inherantly not trustworthy... But it was the truth. I've hinted at this above, but I'll be more direct now... consider the other ways I could have responded: I could have either A)Told the WIFOM truth, as I did... B)Ignored the accusations alltogether... C)Fabricated a BS excuse. Considering those are my only options, is there any sort of defense I could have used that wouldn't have made me look scummier than the initial offense? Maybe C, but it would be lies. A or B both make me look scummier. I think B is worse than A, actually. Maybe I could have used A with less appeals and less WIFOM, and made it more concise, but that is the curse to my long-winded nature of posting.

attempts at pairing people off:

Wait a minute... this explains a lot... You think I was trying to pair you and pops as scum mates? That couldn't be further from the truth... yes, I said that I thought pops was defending you, But a player defending another player does not mean that both are scum. Maybe pops legitamately didn't agree with the accusations against you. Maybe pops is scum and knows you're town and was defending a townie to look town or make a townie friend. Based on the fact that I actually asked for pops opinion, and the subsequent conversation we had, I came to the conclusion that pops' feelings he said about you were genuine.

little passive-aggressive manipulations you've been using to get people to feel sorry for you:

as I said to OGML above, whats said is said, and any attempt to further defend this point will only look progressively worse. I'll concede the scumminess of it, and hope its not enough to get me lynched.

I think those are fair points, a shame that no one brought those up earlier.

No, but then again I've never played on MS with an SK before. XD

Why is it a shame? are they not valid points because they were brought up now, and not earlier? Why or why not?

I have just as much right as anyone else, and I say it should always be ok to talk about an SK. I do not set limitations on what should or shouldn't happen for a town to talk about roles in a setup.

Well then I disagree with your philosophy... I think limitations should be set. When I'm not sure talking about topic A will help the town, but I think it may help the mafia, then I avoid topic A. I don't start talking about topic A hoping that something pro-town will evolve out of it, all the while thinking that its definately helping scum.

Regardless whether or not you think WIFOM is a good tell, do you dispute that this is a genuine case of it?

Its genuinely WIFOM, but not the kind that says anything about my allignment, IMO. Its similar to saying "I don't think player X is scum today because player Y was nked, and I don't think player X would have nked player Y." Its definately WIFOM, but depending on the context, doesn't say a thing about the player using the WIFOM.

It was Rhinox's position that talking about the SK on Day 1 is useless, regardless of the implications it might have later in the game, because he thought we would know at some later date.

Thats either an innocent misread of Rhinox 55, or an intentional misrep of it:

we should know tomorrow or at some point down the road if there is an sk to deal with, so why worry about it before we know?

Should be interpretted as (and this has been my position in the entire conversation): We don't need to specifically worry about an sk until we have reason to believe there is an sk - until then, hunting factionless scum is the best we can do.

I want so badly to play the newbie card right now ;_;

I think you just did

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

Sorry IAUN, not ignoring you... just having a hard time keeping track of everybody who needs answered.

If all you mean by 'suspicious' is "It's possible they're scum, because it's always possible that somebody is scum", then why bother pointing out specific behaviours as 'suspicious'? Isn't everything anyone says 'suspicious', by your definition?

I guess the best way for me to define this is:

suspicious = potentially scummy.

suppose a replacement player A jumped in right now and said something like, "IAUN is obvscum" and voted. That would be highly suspicious, but not necessarily scummy. What would follow would probably be a barrage of questions asking "Why?". If player A has some very good reasons, then it probably would no longer be considered suspicious nor scummy. If Player A had no good reasons, then they would be seen as scummy and the suspicions would be validated. To tie this into my previous expanation (to show that I am indeed saying the same thing in a different way), I would still call a player who has done nothing scummy but is not confirmed town suspicious, because they still have the potential to be scum.

So, these two quotes are kind of contradictory. In one, you're arguing that power roles will act the same whether there's an SK or not, but in the other you're saying that Coyote is helping the scum by sending the power roles on an SK hunt. How does that work?

I don't think I'm being contradictory at all. I don't think town roles should play any differently by assuming anything about scum factions, so if anything thats consistent with my suspicions of RC for insisting that town roles should play differently by assuming an sk.

[Korts]

It would make sense to lynch someone on the grounds that they are scum period.

So why presume there is a SK or discuss the likeliness of there being one, when scumhunting methods won't differ on Day 1 regardless of the number of anti-town factions?

The town should always necessarily assume they've been given the worst hand, as should the mafia, as should an SK.

You've said this a couple times. Why? Assuming so or not doesn't change anything in the scumhunting process until perhaps near-endgame.

Does an SK necessarily have an easier time winning this game if we are to ignore (delibrately ignore) his probable presence until we can prove, without a doubt, that he exists?

I don't think it would change his chances; and anyway, no-one is talking about deliberately ignoring his possible--not probable, because there is no proof either way--presence; the argument is that there is nothing to discuss in whether we have a SK or not. The factors to take into consideration are unknown and it doesn't further anything to speculate on it.

If we managed to get to Day 3, and by some combination of Doctor saves, double shots, and any other interventional behavior, only one kill has gone through each night, is it then still unhelpful to discuss an SK?

Are you knowingly forcing discussion into something that won't help anything at this point?

What better case might that be? pops for posting riddles? Huntress for "refusing to vote"?

Get with the program Korts. This is Day 1. No "superior cases" are being made. I'm content with voting Rhinox, and I read what you're saying as borderline defending Rhinox by implying that the case against him is any less valid than one already out there.

Ahaha. I was saying that the initial case on which you voted Rhinox was less valid; I'm not sure what the case is at this point. But there were definitely superior cases at the time you voted Rhinox; pops posting for the sake of posting and essentially echoing me, and then being generally unhelpful, in particular.

If I am right about pops and I end up being a mislynch tomorrow for it, fine. 1-1 is alright by me.

I may take you up on that

pops is not a lurker. Spy is anti-lurker. Therefore, Spy is anti-pops. Doesn't make sense does it?

Trying to deflect SpyreX's vote off pops, or trying to attract a wagon on SpyreX? Either way, you are scum and you are hinting a connection to pops. Me not like.

My thoughts--the selective scumhunting that I initially accused Rhinox (I think) of applies much more to Red. He's very much obsessed with discussing a SK, so much that I'm getting the feeling he doesn't want to scumhunt, he wants to SKhunt. Afraid of crosskills, I say. As well as being partly IIoA.

unvote, vote: RedCoyote

(L-1)

XD

Being mafia is, like, a million times as much fun as being town.

Are you having much fun, then, scum?

And seriously guys, WTF is with the hundred-mile pages? Rhinox, Jahudo, Red and Huntress--I'm looking at you.

I'm caught up until OGML's post 195, whose points I'll be answering in a seperate post, and after that I'm getting some well deserved rest--seriously people.

[Korts]

I don't agree that its clear-cut, for one thing, and you make it sound like we can play this game like its some kind of algorithm. A standardized response to a specific action is not diagnostic, and is therefore the perfect move for scum to make.

I don't agree that it was a standardized reaction, particularly.

"At this stage of the game"... whats that mean exactly? Whats the cut off point when the game goes from color by numbers to actually scumhunting?

There is no distinct line to be drawn, but you know well enough that there are very few leads to follow as the game starts up--I took one chance at firing up some more serious discussion.

This is just covering your tracks. Pseudo-serious is incredibly hard to define as it is. Does that mean you wouldn't lynch based on that vote? Or what? And no, it was not in any obvious that the vote was "pseudo-serious."

So if you vote on page two, for the first possible scumtell you notice, are you willing to lynch based on it? And yes, pseudo-serious is incredibly hard to define. NOT QUITE SERIOUS. There is nothing particularly challenging in that thought IMO.

OGML FoSing without comment? Especially considering how Rishi called Rhinox out a few minutes before him, I think this is a strange move.

Define "strange move." Because this feels like a way to just smear me without backing anything up.

This comment is funny because you're trying to "smear me up" for the first non-random vote I made being too "by the book".

My point in calling your FoS strange was that you basically gave yourself a free pass to piggyback on Rishi's case on Rhinox if the wagon gained a little momentum, by implying that it was for the same points Rishi made that you were suspicious of Rhinox. It's not really a good tell but I had a bad feeling about it at the time.

I agree with your point on Rhinox making every attempt at appeal to emotion and buttering up of the whole player list; why I missed that originally, I can only guess (walls of text?).

Ok I'm up to Red's post 199 and I'm K.O.

I'm gonna come back later to finish up...

[Rhinox]

You know what I find really odd... the same people calling me scum are some of the same people voting RC right now for pretty much the same points I've been arguing about RC all game... not too sure what to make of it right now, but it makes me think the wagon on RC right now is highly scum motivated...

[bionicchop2]

A lot of lengthy posting today, so I will respond to the shortest and most recent post, then scurry away until later when I can provide appropriate responses to the longer ones

You know what I find really odd... the same people calling me scum are some of the same people voting RC right now for pretty much the same points I've been arguing about RC all game... not too sure what to make of it right now, but it makes me think the wagon on RC right now is highly scum motivated...

There is also the possibility (which exists in my case) that the back and forth between RC and yourself has shown your responses to him as more town than his responses to you. This is not to assume that it was a scum vs. town debate occurring.

So, I guess I would like to know what is generating the concerns. Is it the speed of vote changes? The lack or supportive arguments? Or simply as you stated that they were people voting for you?

I don't recall any of the points against you being directly related to your debates with RC. I thought they were related to your contradiction and emotional appeal. I have my own reasons for my vote, unvote and then vote on RC, but none of them were related to the interaction between you two except for the times I feel he has seemed to twist what you have said.

[Rhinox]

bio, I guess it would be because a lot of the arguments being made against RC by the players that were voting for me were basically the same points I was arguing in my back and forth with RC... I find it odd that if I'm so obvscum (according to some of the players) that my points of concern with RC are being used to justify the wagon on him right now...

OGML even goes so far as to suggest that RC and I are each scum members of different factions - I find that a completely baseless assumption, considering its D1 and there is no reason to be assuming anything about factions, nor evidence to support the assumption... well, maybe OGML knows something about the scum factions I don't. I get the feeling that assumption was made because its the only way he can justify calling RC and I both scum. Also, conveniently I suppose, its a way for OGML to hide lining up lynches. Lynch one of us today. If town, the other looks more scum. If scum (sk), the other is a member of the other faction.

It also makes sense that scum would go after RC first when pushing a one or the other, or both scum scenario to set up mislynches - 1 or the other type situations typically don't work because of the potential false dilemna aspect of the argument. If one of us are lynched town, it probably wouldn't fly to call the other scum solely on our massive disagreement. But even if RC is lynched town first, I can still be tomorrow's mislynch based on my bad play up til now.

There is also the possibility (which exists in my case) that the back and forth between RC and yourself has shown your responses to him as more town than his responses to you. This is not to assume that it was a scum vs. town debate occurring.

This is true, but I dont get that feeling from some players... Its very clear that some players are calling both RC and I obvscum.

[bionicchop2]

bio, I guess it would be because a lot of the arguments being made against RC by the players that were voting for me were basically the same points I was arguing in my back and forth with RC... I find it odd that if I'm so obvscum (according to some of the players) that my points of concern with RC are being used to justify the wagon on him right now...

Its very clear that some players are calling both RC and I obvscum.

RC scum and Rhinox scum do not need to be mutually exclusive. If I thought you were scum and you made a valid argument against somebody, I could not discount that argument even if you turned out to be confirmed as scum. It would be a genetic fallacy (maybe ad hominem? - I am not great with fallacy terms) to discount your arguments based on your alignment - especially without any concrete knowledge of your alignment.

[OhGodMyLife]

I suddenly feel like Rhinox and RC being scumbuddies is not the stretch that I thought it was.

[bionicchop2]

vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.

The way you phrase that makes it seem like you don't expect to actually be lynching Rhinox today. Are multiple strong wagons in a day necessary? Were you willing to see Rhinox lynched when you placed this vote?

My vote was not locked in to the extent where I felt sure I would prefer to lynch Rhinox today. I still had to feel him out and weigh in the apparent scumminess of some of his actions against the rest of his game participation. At the time, I felt a more unified scumhunt focused on Rhinox would have been valuable - more so than a 1 on 1 between Rishi and myself.

bio 182 is a winner. Your prior unvote of rhinox based on RC's voting has me worried though. Don't discount that rc and rhinox could be a) bussing [least likely], b) on two seperate scumteams [more likely] or c) one is mafia and the other is sk [also more likely]

I don't discount anything really. My unvote at that time was to emphasize to RC how underwhelming I felt his case was. It was paired with a reduced suspicion level of Rhinox.

[popsofctown]

i had an argument with RC about alignment-based-ad hom.

But basically, Rhinox is adhomming himself. it's kind of funny.

[My Milked Eek]

Ok, I'm back.
I obviously didn't get to posting. Router fixed today.

Anyways, aside from my apologies and relevant and non-relevant excuses, here I am.

I also only comment on the first few pages as of yet as it's late. No worries, I have a free day tomorrow, will pick up where I left then.

On second thought, I'll just post everything in one slew tomorrow.

[popsofctown]

there's obviously time for you to change your mind, Vi. Modsanta will still bring you presents this christmas, i promise.

[bionicchop2]

@RC 199 - I am just going to address parts written specifically to me unless something jumps out at me. Will look at the rest closer and evaluate later (may not have additional comments). If I excluded anything directed at me, I simply didn't have anything further to discuss on the item. If any exclusions are something you feel need a direct response, let me know.

I am seeing a ton of repetition in your posts.

And yet you don't see a ton of repetition of the same questions being asked and answered?

From what I have read, it does not seem the initial question(s) was answered. This will lead to rephrasing / repeating if the player wants an answer. If the questions were less clear to me, I might have discounted your responses as not fully knowing what the question was really asking.

I do not need a response to this post, except for

My posts are very succinct, it's just they're all mashed together into one as opposed to being spewed across the thread.

I wasn't knocking the long posts or anything about the way you post. I was working to stop the cycle since the topic was exhausted from my perspective. The one item I did want a response to though.

This question is pure fluff and could not be used in any manner of scum hunting.

Then you take the position that self-voting is inconsequential to a game, correct?

I am not stating my view on self-voting. Nobody has self-voted, so there is no need for me to pre-emptively state my view on it. This question would be a topic for the MD forum, but has no place in a game unless somebody has done it. The answer to the question in the absence of the action has no potential for finding scum. As scum or town, any player could answer that 100% honestly without revealing any information. Now if somebody had self-voted, the question would have merit. The player would need to take a position on the action and more importantly the player self-voting. This is the equivalent of asking my opinion on D1 miller claims if nobody has claimed miller. No reasonable conclusion about anybody's alignment can be derived from the conversation.

Pops was not accusing me of being SK, but more stating that is would be a horrible move for me if I was SK.

What does this mean?

If someone uses the phrase, "If A is B" that means they are considering the possibility that A is, in fact, B, and not C, like A would have you believe.

Pops said, considering the possibility that you were an SK, that would be a bad move.

How could you read it any other way?

You are changing "If bionicchop2 is SK, this would be a bad move" (paraphrased since I don't have the thread open and I am writing this in a text document), to "bionicchop2, as a SK, has made a bad move by doing this". Hypothetical /= accusation. The end of his post lists SK as my least likely role based on my actions. Pop's WIFOM rundown can be simplified to:
-X is something a SK is not likely to do since it is a bad play for them.
-bionicchop2 committed X
-bionicchop2 is not likely to be SK
An if:then statement is not designed to assume the if statement is true or assert that it is. You have seen Rhinox say "If I was scum", but he is not accusing himself of being scum.

Asking somebody for their opinion on something without stating your own, then coming back and just agreeing with their view sticks out to me.

Are you making the statement that a player should have their opinion on an issue on the record in a game before they ask another player their own opinion on an issue?

I think opinions seem more genuine when they are stated on their own and not stated as an agreement of others. The basic concept that scum want to fit in to the masses leads to a tendency for scum to tag along with the ideas of others.

What I will question is the fact you say it is good practice to discuss all roles. My reason is that you have not discussed other roles. Where is your discussion about the mafia roles? Where do you discuss how we should prepare for and acknowledge that mafia may have a watcher who could identify town power roles at night? Where do you discuss town roles (Please don't)?

Don't ask me questions you don't want the answer to.

The question required an answer. The "please don't" was asking not to discuss the town roles. I was asking you to identify any place you had already discussed these other roles.

Perhaps it stems from playing elsewhere, but I do indeed think talking about role possibilites is good stuff.

Like, for instance (God, this is going to sound like such heresy to you people), a townie Watcher is such a gold mine of an opportunity. It may be worth risking having one player come out, on the basis that there could be a townie Doctor and/or a townie Watcher.

This may help certain roles get information about who is clean in this town (and verifying it over night).

This would be a radical departure from the way MS is normally played, no doubt.

Then again, the more I think about the rationale certain players had for questioning why I would consider the SK a probable enemy, the more slack I have to give them considering the way MS is.

There is a huge gap between open and semi-open games. A game like a newbie game, you at least have some knowledge of the odds for each role. On Epic, you always know the roles and can strategize how to use them. The open games here can be played the same (hypo-claims and other strategies can be used then too). The closest you get is in a janitor game on Epic, where one of your town roles may be gone and you don't know which. In our case though, you won't know all roles until the game is over, though you may be able to conclusively figure some out. You also can't use logic like "there is a mafia doctor, there must be a sk" if a mafia doctor dies. This is a site where mods put godfathers and millers in games with no cops. Nurses are used in games with no doctors.

I guess I will break down the last part of this post into my summation with your response to each item:

• Failure to evolve discussion of choice into scum hunting

  - I have indeed found multiple instances to justify my vote of Rhinox, none of which are related to the SK discussion.

  I would like an itemized list of Rhinox's actions you deem scummy. I think it would help me analyze your stance on him and it may reveal you have more points against him than I have recognized.
  
• Repetition of points which are IMO safe to discuss since nobody is truly debating the initial logic.

  - Repetition of questions that have been asked and answered.

  I addressed this in the post. I think the answers did not address the questions and instead came back to points you already made. IMO the repeated questions were needed.
  
• Spinning the statements of those who questioned your methods

  - What does my "methods" mean? Need a definition of this term.

  By methods I mean the manner in which you have approached the game and chosen to scumhunt (or perceived lack thereof).
  
• Planting seeds of suspicion on pops without making your own case (piggyback onto Spyrex accusations) and wavering on truly committing to an opinion of him.

  - I made it clear that I suspected pops because he didn't respond to Spy's direct line of questioning.

  It wasn't clear to me and it seemed as if you were persuaded by Spyrex since you said his case was more convincing than Korts' case.
  
• minor contradictions of statements throughout

  - General accusation that can be lumped into any case.

  Perhaps, but was it not a major point of contention which lead to votes on Rhinox? I thought you had some comments about him regarding this, but I would have to read back.
  
• unprovoked defenses of players

  - Giving my opinion on situations as they have arose.

  It is my job to guess the motive behind this. Alone, it could be town (I do defend players when I think their attackers are out of line - though I feel this can sometimes be poor play on my part). This is another one of those things that town players can do (all scum 'tells' are IMO) but there are clear reasons for scum to do it. When these instances add up, they begin to push my view towards the player being scum.

[popsofctown]

I think RC is trying to tie himself to me actually. Defending me, but not addressing any accusations i make against him (addressing everyone else's instead). And then the awkward turtle FoS he made that one time, that was weird.

I don't know how relevant that thought is, but i'd like to have it on file. Does anyone else get this impression?

[Vi]

Vote Count:

RedCoyote (L-1) ~ Huntress, bionicchop2, popsofctown, Rishi, iamausername, Korts

Rhinox (L-4) ~ Jahudo, RedCoyote, OhGodMyLife
popsofctown (L-6) ~

Korts,

SpyreX

Minimum (L-7)

Not Voting:

My Milked Eek, Rhinox
[size=0]bionicchop2 - 0 | Huntress - 1 | iamausername - 0 | Jahudo - 1 | Korts - 0 | My Milked Eek - 0 - PROD1 1 | OhGodMyLife - 0 - PROD1 3 | popsofctown - 0 | RedCoyote - 0 | Rhinox - 0 | Rishi - 0 | SpyreX - 1[/size]

First Deadline Review: Saturday, Feb 14 2009
Current Deadline: Wednesday, Feb 18 2009

----

L-1 wagon put in larger text so you can't miss it~

[Jahudo]

My vote on Rhinox was initially a joke vote and I kept it on when I didn't like his appeal to emotion. I am having growing suspicions of RedCoyote and a few more things to bring up to Rhinox.

Regarding Rhinox:

So what will your new conclusion be when I show up town tomorrow morning?

I know this is directed at OGML but I have a problem with it.

attempts at pairing people off

:…I said that I thought pops was defending you, But a player defending another player does not mean that both are scum.

Didn’t you say it sounded like a "bad attempt at distancing" though? As in scum distancing scum, or did you mean it sounded like scum distancing from town?

Regarding RedCoyote"

Whether this is true or not, do you consider what pops admitted to, to be scummy? Actually, anyone is welcome to answer this, I want to see more discussion over Korts v pops.

Asking somebody for their opinion on something without stating your own, then coming back and just agreeing with their view sticks out to me. If you felt his post was a joke and not a scummy comment, you chose to address it in a different manner than when you defended Huntress and myself.

Actually he’s asking everybody to give their opinions while he’s not giving even a hint of an opinion himself. That does look like he’s testing the waters on a pops wagon. He clearly says he wants discussion but he’s not actually discussing anything in that post.

My reason is that you have not discussed other roles. Where is your discussion about the mafia roles?

Don't ask me questions you don't want the answer to. Perhaps it stems from playing elsewhere, but I do indeed think talking about role possibilites is good stuff.

And yet you continue on and don’t explain why you didn’t discuss mafia roles in the same vein?

And I don’t like you saying you want to play the newbie card but I read it as an aside comment that you are conscious won’t be used in your favor, so I don’t think it’s appeal to emotion.

we should know tomorrow or at some point down the road if there is an sk to deal with, so why worry about it before we know?

It was Rhinox's position that talking about the SK on Day 1 is useless, regardless of the implications it might have later in the game, because he thought we would know at some later date.

Maybe I’m comparing apples to apples here but I don’t think he was saying that talking about it was useless. Rhinox is arguing that the speculation becomes more tangible when/if a second kill is registered. Because if he did think it was useless, why would he want to pressure you to talk about it if you stopped bringing it up?:

I contend that had I just blantantly stopped talking about the SK on post 78 that Rhinox, Rishi, and possibly others would've continually pressured me into talking about it.

Those are the three main points I am agreeing with on the RC wagon.

Rhinox - post 181 is full of yuck.

What’s yuck about it?

How is a vote without a serious explanation suddenly not a serious vote?

To me it did not look like a RVS joke vote but it was also less serious than a vote reinforced by stronger tells. It was the way Korts said "posting for the sake of posting…Shame." in response to "talk-about-nothing-like-you’re-getting-paid-club" that made me feel he knew it was a minor tell coming from a joking fluff post.

I have another meta-rooted tell for RC, which may or may not be valid. Do you want me to tell it to RC in front of you all so he can correct it again?

Might as well since he’s at L-1.

I’m not ready for him to claim though, because that signals decision time to believe him or lynch him. I don’t want to possibly end the day with no read on MME.

[bionicchop2]

Rhinox - post 181 is full of yuck.

What’s yuck about it?

I didn't update my notes after reading it, so I don't remember my exact thoughts. The post is way too self-aware, if that makes sense. I didn't really go into detail on it because I don't want to coach him how to play and I don't know if the post is necessarily scummy. If someone claims to play exactly the same as town and scum, then they are unwittingly saying you can never trust them. All the talk about "why would I do X as scum?" WIFOMY stuff becomes negated. On one hand he says there is no reason for him to act a certain way and be so openly honest about acting like a VI if he is scum. Then he goes on to later say he plays the same for both alignments. That then leads to the possibility he could intentionally be making the play he would make as town to keep his meta identical.

[RedCoyote]

I think RC is trying to tie himself to me actually. Defending me, but not addressing any accusations i make against him (addressing everyone else's instead). And then the awkward turtle FoS he made that one time, that was weird.

I'd actually be content if you were today's lynch pops, I think you've done a great job flying under the radar.

---

I'm going to go ahead and go on

offense

a little bit, seeing as how no one has asked for my claim yet. Usually I don't mind addressing questions brought up for me, but it really is beginning to get out of hand, especially when Huntress and Spyrex haven't even made an updated post yet. So to those of you who want me to defend myself more, I say that if the lynch is coming down to me and Rhinox, then I shall be the one to make an official case against Rhinox.

I'll go ahead and do an analysis of what I took notes on, although at the moment I would be comfortable with

anyone besides me

pops being the pick today as well (this isn't to say I'm necessarily

against

anyone else, it's just that these two specifically I think are the bigger offenders).

No Random Vote

I still believe not RV is anti-town, but null in terms of finding scum. And I just don't feel like hopping up on my soapbox about it this time.

Nothing too bad here as the game is just beginning. I just wanted to point out how I wasn't very fond of "I think such-and-such is anti-town, but I'm not going to talk about it".

I later come to Huntress' defense, and still think her position was justified in that breaking from the norm (RV) can indeed provoke an emotional response from other players. A response can easily lead to a great way to begin the game's discussion.

Also, what are you learning from this conversation?

Well, I'm learning that something as small (IMO) as foregoing a random vote can cause you to speak up.

Why are you not mentioning My Milked Eek, who also posted without voting?

Well, I never said everyone has to RV in their very first post, I just think its better if everyone does it.

This rubs me the wrong way too. It doesn't seem genuine.

I think it's more likely that Rhinox simply forgot about MME, he didn't notice him because he didn't write the same thing that Huntress wrote.

Again, nothing major, it just feels fake to me.

Continue down the page, little else can be said, he is talking about Mafia 87 a lot. He's also trying to feel bionic, which is a good thing.

I don't view any conversation as useless, so long as its mafia related.

Except for not voting instead of random voting (and later, I contend, SK talk).

I'll rephrase my question: Would discussion about [Huntress] being scum for not random voting be helpful to the town, assuming [Huntress is] town?

Going back to earlier. Maybe Rhinox sincerely feels this way, but to me it sounds like he's going to great lengths to basically justify calling Huntress out for not voting.

Discussing the SK (to get it out of the way)

My point was, we should know tomorrow or at some point down the road if there is an sk to deal with, so why worry about it before we know?

Bare with me as Rhinox posts a lot, but I read this as saying that we shouldn't assume there is an SK and we shouldn't talk about it until it's proven.

My entire beef with this philosophy is that it seems entirely too restrictive and unnecessary. I can easily picture the circumstance of an SK shooting a townie and the mafia shooting an SK (for the first time). Couple that with a mislynch or no usable information and the town might be starting to sweat a little bit. It's more anti-town to me to want to effectively ignore the SK until proven otherwise than it is to restrict SK discussion lest the mafia benefit (which they may).

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, this is just my position on the subject. Moving on...

But my point is... unless there are sk kills, there is no reason to suspect an sk, nor hunt for one.

Now I never suggested we hunt for an SK as a separate strategy, that was brought up here by Rhinox.

Then there is a discussion over self-voting, which I had no idea was such a thorn in the community's side (no wonder Huntress hassled me about it).

[RC], you insult everyone by thinking that any town power roles would be too stupid to take into consideration any possible roles when making their night choices? Thats what all this has been about? So you can state the obvious, in an attempt to look like a perfect little highly informative townie?

Misrepresentation that came off very strongly to me.

Pairing up

Pops: Anything you can divine from from the rest of the conversation about sks?what do you think of RC's comments about SK?

RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is not as curt it should be though, which gives me a slight scum vibe. I've decided to read this player mostly on meta, because when i read him just like everyone else he consistently slips by, so i might be using poorly explained reasons some this game, i'll try to be glass man like Korts as much as possible though.

Also, your jumping to the defense of RC without letting him answer questions directed at him himself, is noted.

This is when I start to think Rhinox is bad news instead of just someone I have an honest disagreement with.

Nowhere in post 82 is pops defending me. In fact, contrarily, he says he's already getting a slight scum vibe off of me. pops makes it clear that he understands the point I was making, and that's about all I can get from it.

Moreover, pops was only addressing me to begin with because Rhinox

asked

him to. Is he setting pops up for certain circumstances?

In post 88 Rhinox calls bio suspicious but specifically says that he doesn't find him scummy. Rishi brings this up again later.

Here pops jumps to RC's defense after I asked RC questions, whithout giving RC a chance to answer the questions himself. In the same paragraph, however, its giving him a slight scum vibe. This sounds like fence-sitting, and a bad attempt at distancing.

This is just misrepresentation.

∙ Rhinox asks pops to give his opinion on me (80)
∙ pops answers Rhinox's question, stating that my stance gave off a slight scum vibe (82)
∙ Rhinox votes pops (84) and cites post 82 as his primary reason for doing so (88, 91)
∙ Rhinox clarifies that he indeed thinks pops' is defending me, saying that "I never had an chance to answer", despite the fact that he asked pops directly to give his opinion on me

This entire exchange takes about seven hours.

On a different note, I do very much think Rhinox has a point that pops' basing his suspicions of me on one meta game he had with me is not good scumhunting, but that's neither here nor there.

Nevertheless, bionic asks the question before I get a chance to here,

Rhinox - I missed the part where you directly asked pops about RC. How do you justify jumping on him for 'defending' RC when he was answering your question?

Rhinox responds to these concerns by unvoting pops and giving a pretty emotional rant in post 111.

I tell him in post 152 that his appeal isn't good enough for me. Essentially, I'm not writing this off as a simple mistake. Not only does Rhinox end up using this mistake to his advantage (discussed below) but his quick punishment of pops for "defending me" sounds completely artifical. The fact that he suggests pops may be attempting to distance himself from me by calling my position "slightly scummy" seems almost entirely founded in creating something out of nothing.

This would not prove to be Rhinox's worst tell however.

WIFOM

This is wifom, but what would be the benefit of saying "oops I'm just a VI who made a scummy mistake?" if I were actually scum. Why wouldn't I just make up some BS about how even though you were answering my question I still found it overly defending RC and scummy

Just because Rhinox tells us it's WIFOM, doesn't mean it's any less scummy. This post was addressing pops' concerns (not mine) for characterizing him as defending me.

He continues to tell us he admitted to his mistake and he's very distressed about it. That's all well and good, but it's as if Rhinox is trying to use it to bolster himself up (e.g. if I was mafia I definitely would not make that mistake ).

In post 118 he is showing bionic some more love.

If the appeal to emotion is what making you vote me now, then I might as well just stop talking because there is nothing I could say to change your opinion of me. What I have said is honest. I know you don't have a problem using wifom, so do you really think that it would have been beneficial for me to be THAT honest as scum?

More WIFOM. I wonder if Rhinox still remembers that the whole point of his defense was because he forgot he asked a question of pops. It looks here like he's just trying to justify his appeals rather than explain why it is he made the decision.

More than a little defensive, but mostly it helps to confirm my idea that he is using his "slip up" as an excuse to make himself look good.

...but if opportunity knocks, you know?

bionic refers to a meta game in which Rhinox and himself were both a part of. He implies that the mafia was actively using WIFOM to defend themselves, and asks why Rhinox appears to be blantantly using WIFOM here if that's the case.

Rhinox response was that the game wasn't "fresh in his head", despite it being his most recently completed game.

Unfortunately for me, there just hasn't been enough time for ANYONE to have stacked up a mountain of overwhelming town play... if you guys quicklynch me, that won't change. If you don't, then maybe I can turn around and be more pro-town.

Putting this statement under WIFOM for a specific reason. The point he's trying to make is that by not lynching him he will be able to prove he is town.

It's an appeal, it's as if he wants us to believe that if he were scum, he would not be able to create a "mountain of overwhelming townie play", but because he is town, he needs to be kept alive to do it.

Call it circular reasoning, call it WIFOM, call it an appeal... I'll just call it bad news.

so, you're saying if I'm scum, that I'm a good scum player who will be able to explain away my mistake. Although even good scum players can make some mistakes, do you think a good scum player would make the obvious mistake that I made?

Repeating the same WIFOM to bionic.

That [appeal] is a little extreme, but I think you know that.

You're right... maybe I was being a little melodramatic... but does it make what I said any less true?

Ugh. It's like he says understands why his statement is scummy, but asks if it counts anyways (because Rhinox's statements are

too scummy

to be used by scum).

I concede that a lot of my defense is WIFOM and thus inherantly not trustworthy... But it was the truth.

I did not edit this statement in anyway, and it's the perfect segue to what I believe to be Rhinox's worst offenses.

Passive-Aggression/Defeatism - Emotional Manipulation

Aparently nothing I can say to stop [the wagon on me], since my defenses are overrated ::eyeroll::

I have a personal tell that I look for. I say personal because I'm not sure if it is widely-recognized or not.

I don't like it when people get pessimistic.

To me, townies should always have some sort of zeal, some sort of indignation in their hearts when they are being voted or fear they are going to be lynched.

Granted, not everyone has the same sort of personality, but I will accept a townie getting supremely frustrated with their fellow players before I will accept a townie beating

themselves

up, even in jest, over being voted.

If you agree with that, then this statement would likely stand out to you as well.

So you don't 100% believe my explanation. Fair enough... I haven't really given you or anyone a reason to trust anything I've said.

I do not care for post 154 in general, but this statement really takes the cake.

This kind of talk completely registers on my scum radar, and I let Rhinox know about it:

Cry me a river, Rhinox.

Resulting to ad hom now to try to get me lynched, or at least get a rouse out of me?

That statement was meant for BC, and not you. So, why the need to respond?

What does this statement add to anything? How is this scumhunting?

(emphasis added).

[RC's] Question asked toward Rishi, but I would like to answer for myself.

Threw a little contradiction in there for good measure, but my point is that I saw the earlier statement in post 154 as a means of both buddying up to bionic and, at the same time, acting completely emotionally manipulative.

I'll concede the scumminess of [my little emotional manipulations], and hope its not enough to get me lynched.

Like Rhinox accurately pointed out, just my bringing up the word "newbie" is enough to be effectively playing the card.

Just Rhinox bringing up that he is guilty of these appeals and saying that he hopes we look past them is simply another case of manipulation (either for good or bad).

Finally, although I agree with post 207, I do not like the fact that each sentence ends in an ellipsis (but, since Rhinox does this quite often, I don't consider it to be much of a tell in his case).

Missing some pieces

Oh, ok... guess I missed the explanation the first time.

In post 177 Rhinox had forgotten Korts' explanation of his playstyle. This isn't anything major, I could see this as innocently forgotten, but it's just something I wanted to add.

Summary:

∙ Potential cover-up for his ignorance of MME, unnecessarily frustrated with Huntress and unwillingness to explain why
∙ Potentially dragging out the SK argument longer than necessary, blowing parts out of proportion in order to detract from tells he has been exhibiting
∙ Intentionally misrepresenting the relationship between pops and myself based on circumstances he created
∙ Retracting said misrepresentation noth with the motivation of clarification but rather with the continual motive of self-preservation
∙ The flagrant, admitted use of WIFOM in order to make defensive statements
∙ A conspicuously close relationship with bionic that seems to produce little in the way of hunting.
∙ The flagrant, admitted use of appeals to manipulate other players in instances that are primarily preemptive but also in response specifically to those who show suspicion of him.
∙ Forgetting two important happenings in the game that have caused him to apologize for not properly reading/recalling the game (e.g. asking pops a question/Korts' activity)

[RedCoyote]

EBWOP: ∙ Retracting said misrepresentation not with the motivation of clarification but rather with the continual motive of self-preservation

By the way pops, what points did you want me to address that I haven't addressed already? Point me to a specific post that I ignored and I will answer it for you.

[Rishi]

I suddenly feel like Rhinox and RC being scumbuddies is not the stretch that I thought it was.

I don't know... I couldn't imagine them being scumbuddies. I won't say that scumbuddies never go after each other, but this is some pretty hardcore distancing. Kind of a big risk on Day 1.

Of course, they both could be scum on different teams. We need to speculate on how many scum groups there could be! (j/k)

Like others, I have read the walls of text but may need to read them again to extract the salient points. OGML's point was short and easy to respond to.

[Rhinox]

I know this is directed at OGML but I have a problem with it.

Care to elaborate?

Didn’t you say it sounded like a "bad attempt at distancing" though? As in scum distancing scum, or did you mean it sounded like scum distancing from town?

Yeah, I did say that. But that was only 1 possibility. I don't know why I didn't list every possibility. Maybe I just thought it would be assumed.

i had an argument with RC about alignment-based-ad hom.

But basically, Rhinox is adhomming himself. it's kind of funny.

Actually, I'm just pointing out the fallacy that OGML is sneaking in. Basically, OGML has said that:

1)If RC is mafia, then Rhinox is either mafia bussing or sk b/c sk want to be on a wagon of a different scum faction (note that i've never even voted for RC yet though...)
2)If RC is SK, then Rhinox is mafia because mafia want to be on a wagon of a different scum faction.
3)If RC is town, then Rhinox is scum arguing for a mislynch + plus Rhinox had a lot of scummy comments on D1.

So no matter what, OGML is setting me up to be lynched tomorrow regardless of RC's allignment.

It also works in reverse - i.e. switch RC and me in the 3 scenario's above. Only difference is that its harder to justify lynching RC tomorrow once I show up town.

RC scum and Rhinox scum do not need to be mutually exclusive. If I thought you were scum and you made a valid argument against somebody, I could not discount that argument even if you turned out to be confirmed as scum. It would be a genetic fallacy (maybe ad hominem? - I am not great with fallacy terms) to discount your arguments based on your alignment - especially without any concrete knowledge of your alignment.

Thats true, but there is a difference between not discounting an argument, and embracing it to justify lynching someone. I'm especially suspicious of OGML's use of it, in case I haven't made myself perfectly clear yet.

I'd actually be content if you were today's lynch pops, I think you've done a great job flying under the radar.

---

I'm going to go ahead and go on offense a little bit, seeing as how no one has asked for my claim yet. Usually I don't mind addressing questions brought up for me, but it really is beginning to get out of hand, especially when Huntress and Spyrex haven't even made an updated post yet. So to those of you who want me to defend myself more, I say that if the lynch is coming down to me and Rhinox, then I shall be the one to make an official case against Rhinox.

I'll go ahead and do an analysis of what I took notes on, although at the moment I would be comfortable with

anyone besides me

pops being the pick today as well (this isn't to say I'm necessarily against anyone else, it's just that these two specifically I think are the bigger offenders).

I understand why you're summarizing the case on me, but I hope you'll dedicate a similar post toward why you think pops should be today's lynch, since he's your preferred choice. Also, your crossing out of "anyone but me" to me implies that your motive for supecting me and/or pops is only one of self-preservation - you don't care who gets lynched as long as its not you.


Also, regarding the summarized case against me, I wish you would also summarize my defense to all of the points as well instead of making it look like I either didn't answer for a point, or didn't have an explanation. You present the summary in an extremely biased manner... Unless I get real close to being lynched, I'm just going to assume that everybody will realize I actually posted in the last 10 pages in response to a lot of those points and take them into consideration. A couple points you made I feel are new, or I haven't really touched on, or I feel are incorrect, so I'll address those below.

Rhinox response was that the game wasn't "fresh in his head", despite it being his most recently completed game.

The reason the offense (not the game) wasn't fresh in my head was because I was a replacement in that game... I replaced later into D2, and the offense occured D1. The game ended up going nearly 40 pages, and lasted 3 months. My opinion of the scum player was that he got lynched for admitting to not scum hunting and being an active lurker, and I still have no idea what sort of wifom slip or contradiction was made.

Cry me a river, Rhinox.

Resulting to ad hom now to try to get me lynched, or at least get a rouse out of me? That statement was meant for BC, and not you. So, why the need to respond? What does this statement add to anything? How is this scumhunting?

(emphasis added).

[RC's] Question asked toward Rishi, but I would like to answer for myself.

Threw a little contradiction in there for good measure, but my point is that I saw the earlier statement in post 154 as a means of both buddying up to bionic and, at the same time, acting completely emotionally manipulative.

See, this is what i mean about most of the things I've said have been taken out of context to use against me. Regarding the contradiction, they are completely different situations. I answered a question asked of rishi because I felt my answer was adding to the discussion. When I questioned you for jumping in, it wasn't that I felt you shouldn't respond to anything not directed at you, I was saying that your response was nothing more than a personal attack against me, didn't advance the conversation, and was not scumhunting in any way. You just took it as an opportunity to take a jab at me.

Now, if I was having a conversation with you, and you felt that way about a comment directed at you, that would be an appropriate response. In essence, you said "cry

me

a river", when regardless of whatever you think I was saying, nothing was directed at

you

. If you felt the need to respond, I think explaining your issue with my comment would have been truckloads better than a personal attack. That comment you made is just as much of an appeal to emotion - the comment you made invokes more of a negative feeling against me based on just the comment, and not the offense (where as explaining the offense without the emotionally invoking language would seem less biased).