Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

Beyond_Birthday placed the 4th vote on the Panzer wagon based on insubstantial reasoning, and then unvoted based on a post that should not have negated his original voting reasons. He has had wishy-washy stances throughout the game, has not contributed towards scumhunting, and has provided dubious and frankly unbelievable arguments after the fact in regards to why he voted Panzer in the first place. His reasoning looks like made up reasons to try to fit the holes in his play rather than legitimate reasons that he actually believed.

[GIEFF]

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)

Good! This stuff is hard to talk about because it's sort of nested, one level below the surface.

Yes, we are talking about the reasons for a vote. But I do think that this is still a lie; if you say your reasons are X, but your reasons are really Y, then you are lying, no matter the validity of X.

Of course I can't prove anything; that is the nature of the game. I will show you why I believe it to be true, though, using Panzer's own words.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

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

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

So Panzer said he thought you were trying to put pressure on me. A joke- or random-vote is not, by definition, an attempt to apply pressure.

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way he said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

This is a lie. Panzer did not know it was a joke, or at least was pretending not to. If town, it's the former; if scum, it's the latter.

Panzer tried to claim that he knew your post was a joke, but it contained a slip. But he said you were putting pressure on me, which reveals that he did NOT think your post was a joke.

He said this just 25 hours after his original vote for you.


So, either Panzer forgot his reasoning just 25 hours after presenting it, or the reasoning wasn't really the reason he voted you in the first place. The fact that the reasoning was so poor is just another reason to suspect it wasn't the true reason for his vote. Panzer seems like a smart guy, I don't think he would make a mistake like that on accident.

And notice that the lies about his reasoning came well after the fact, no longer in the random-voting stage.




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

Regarding the use of the words "truly" and "honestly;" here are examples of Panzer using these words to describe his own thoughts:

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

I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt".

I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

I must of not thought all that threw and probably didn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.

I truly believe that had you asked me when I mad that post on Mykonian, I would have said I thought it was serious.

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons.

And on the Truly/honestly thing, this is just the way I speak. I speak like this in everyday conversation. I don't change my regular speech patterns in a mafia game.

I tested this claim.

In Mini 716, you were town. You used these words once to describe your own thoughts, in 37 posts, although it was more about meta-game than game.

The reason games go so slow is due to the meta liking long long long day 1's, I truly dislike this and I think these quicker games are better

In Mini 639, you were town. You used these words once to describe your own thoughts, in 19 posts.

I honestly think the Knight has nothing else to go on so he is picking the one guy who dropped off the radar.

In Mini 556, you were scum. You used these words 4 times to describe your thoughts, in 82 posts.

Honestly, That is what it comes off as.

I honestly don't care cause i'm convinced its fake already

I can honestly buy that he has changed his playstyle.

Honestly, the dots don't mean anything

So it looks like for this small sample size you use it at about the same rate regardless of your alignment. Can you point me to some more games where you were scum? Or to a game as town where you have closer to 80 posts?

[mykonian]

I don't know if it is the time, or just because GIEFF was very clear, but I can see where he comes from.

Tomorrow I'll try to get my thoughts together.

Goodnight.

[Dourgrim]

It already looks like my idea helped clarify at least one issue in the thread, the myko/GIEFF debate. Yay for clarity!

Funny how people listen to Dour .

I think it's because I've been here the entire time, and because I wasn't asking for a synopsis of the game per se, but rather asked for a "litmus test" for everyone voting to see if they believed their vote enough to be able to back it up succinctly. Which brings me to...

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."

I think we're going to have to respectfully disagree a bit here. As I said, I don't specifically disagree with GIEFF's logic, but I do think he's tunnelling a bit here in a singleminded attempt to lead a bandwagon that 8 other players (besides mykonian) don't seem to see as the #1 scumtell in the game (or else they'd be voting with him). Also, the name thing isn't the primary tell I'm going on, but I think it's enough of an issue to solidify my other suspicion into a vote.

Why are we not hearing from so many players in this game? Where is qwints? Where is ting =)? Why has spring not posted any real content since last Friday?

[Goatrevolt]

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.

I feel compelled to address this, mostly because I think you are wrong about BB and are dismissing my arguments against him purely because I have presented them and not based on what they actually say.

I will go ahead and explain right now why I didn't include the full rationale behind my vote on BB in the post where I voted him. There were 2 reasons. The first is to see how other people react to my vote. Who disagrees, who agrees? The second is to see how BB reacts to the bare vote. BB's reaction was to ignore it, telling us nothing. Zilla's reaction, however, was to completely dismiss it

without even knowing what it was about

. In her first post following my vote, Zilla didn't even ask me to further explain the 3 reasons I presented. Instead she said my vote was weak, and she didn't even know the reasons why I voted him.

In essence, Zilla dismisses my attack on BB entirely because she doesn't like my playstyle, and not at all based on the points I actually raised against him. I don't know if that relates at all to scum/town, but I will say that it is poor play. So, I think you should get over yourself and your hissy fit about not liking how I play and actually evaluate what I have to say, and not how I went about saying it.

Discusses Meta - Sure you're not confusing me with GIEFF? I have never once agreed or disagreed with a case based on meta, presented meta arguments against anyone, or even hinted at doing so. Come again?

Detracts from scumhunting - This is an entirely biased viewpoint based on your own perceptions of who is scum. If Birthday is scum, as I believe to be true, then your push on mykonian is what is detracting from scumhunting.

Aggressive case - What does it matter if my case is aggressive or not. My vote is based on a lot of information. Read post 345. My vote is certainly based on more information than your vote on Mykonian, which is entirely based on a weak circumstancial random vote and your dislike of him attacking you.

Loudly refusing - A loud refusal to do your will is clearly how we determine scum from town. Good thing you've adopted this principle, because the two players you have attacked this game (myself, mykonian) happen to be the two players who loudly disagreed with you. Disagreeing with Zilla...apparently scummy.

-------

I think people are ignoring a valid case against BB. I want to know why that is. I'm going to start with Zilla, who has consistently asserted my case is bad, but seems unwilling to even know what it's about. I think you need to step up and agree or disagree with it, and I want to know why.

And for posterity sake, here's what's bad about your case on Mykonian:

Asking you to vote him: I do this all the time as town. When someone throws suspicion on me but doesn't back it up with a vote, I will sometimes challenge them by telling them to go ahead and vote me. It forces them to commit to their suspicion. This is a null-tell completely.

First to mention a SK: It's a random vote. He could have said GIEFF was a jester trying to get himself lynched and that we should lynch him just to get him out of the way. Would you assume mykonian is a jester because he brought up jesters? For someone who has consistently lamented that we spent too much time stuck in a random phase mindset and how it's destroyed this game, I find it dubious that part of your case is based off a Random Vote. Such blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore, we don't know if there is a SK, so your vote based on the possibility of him being a SK is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason mentioning a SK changes the paradigm of the game is when people make it do so by lending credence to the notion. You're the one guilty of that, not him.

Defense of Panzer - your only possibly valid point. I don't think mykonian's defense of Panzer has been scummy. He has been consistent in explaining why he thinks Panzer is town. However, you then go on to say he's scummy for "trying to push attention on to others" and one of the others you mention is Panzer, which is laughable, considering how much he has defended Panzer and tried to get attention off of him.

Basically, I think your vote is entirely because you are still pissed off that people didn't just agree with you and give a summary of the game. You started with me, then you moved on to Mykonian. You've tried to supplement your case with hypocritical and weak justifications. You're doing the exact same thing you did with me. You're voting because you didn't like how he disagreed with you and after the fact you're using weak logic to try to make your vote seem more like it is. Why do you consistently do this? Or is your scumhunting entirely a process of attacking and voting for people who don't agree with your viewpoints?

[Goatrevolt]

Dourgrim: Post 345. Your thoughts?

[Zilla]

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

[Goatrevolt]

And Zilla continues to ignore or brush aside what I say.

[GIEFF]

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

So you are suggesting a goat-mykonian-panzer scum pair?


I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

[Beyond_Birthday]

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."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.
Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?
I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

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

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

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

Good, now add this to:

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

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

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

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much. Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

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

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

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


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

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon. However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:[/quote]
First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest). And since I don't wanna mention it later: Aweh, thanks for calling me an expert.

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

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.
The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

Post 349

Granted. Just wondering and I didn't *Get it* from your former post.


Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

[Zilla]

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

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

Meta, but you catch yourself.

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

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

They aren't?

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

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

Seems like a misconstruing of his reasons for changing his mind about Panzer, misrepresentation ++.

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

Really? this very post begs to differ entirely with your assessment that he's disagreed with GIEFF. Note how he generally agrees with GIEFF in theory, but debates the finer points, and in a lot of cases, calls GIEFF out for not going far enough.

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

Do you have no sense of chronology? You're misrepresenting his stance entirely by trying to make it look like he had that viewpoint all along, when he clearly developed the "victimized townie" feel after Panzer's posts, which BB has already clearly stated himself.

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

I don't fully understand.

This is crucial. You don't fully understand, and this is why your case is weak.

I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

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

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

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

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

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

Your case here is based on a faulty premise and faulty conclusions, but really, just reading over Birthday's HUGE vote post should clear this all up.

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

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

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

Oh snap!

Taken out of context from this:

Not really, but since I am currently debating on the validity of the Pan wagon, I no longer feel comfortable leaving my vote there. I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions. (I prefer voting to FoS, and if I vote someone, I usually don't have an issue with their lynch.)

Now, to address your summary of BB:

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

I just don't see where this is warranted; he points out inconsistencies, especially on GIEFF, some on Mykonian and myself, and in general, his posts contain substance. His lack of constant posting however makes him less effective, so I can give you that his hunting isn't turning much up, but don't confuse the lack of impact with a lack of trying.

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

I agree with this. He doesn't assess people on whether they are scum or town but whether they are doing it right or wrong.

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

So yeah, I think he's scum.

Again, I totally don't get the same impression and you're either willfully or unknowingly taking evidence out of context.

Yeah, call it chainsaw if you like, but I'm explaining why I don't buy your case.

[Zilla]

And Zilla continues to ignore or brush aside what I say.

making a huge post, but I felt that was needed. I haven't seen the posts in between mine yet, addressing them now...

[Zilla]

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

First: Have you read my posts? My case on Mykonian?

Second: Why was I able to defend you better than you could defend yourself?

Third: This whole post of yours suddenly makes me far more suspicious of you than previously, considering I must have read you entirely wrong because your stated reasons

in that very post

contradict what I thought of you to begin with. Clearly I was wrong in my opinion...

@ GIEFF: I'm not as suspicious of Panzer as I am of Myk, if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum. As far as "likely to be paired with Myk, if Myk is scum," I'd say it's up in the air between the two, and it depends on what level they are operating. On face value, we have Goat defending Myk via chainsaw, and Panzer attacking Myk early-mid day, so at face value, Goat is more likely by a long shot. It's possible they are all three together, hence Goat...

Wait a minute, Goat's stance on Panzer is a bit suspicious as well.

Goat, would you please give a current account of your stance on Panzer?

[Zilla]

I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

Do you think Birthday scum says anything about Panzer, or vice versa? Do you think Myk, Birthday, and Panzer are the scum trio, or is it exclusive between them, or somewhere in the middle?

[Zilla]

Oh, wow....

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things,

he reaches the right conclusions

and at least considers the right reasons.)

Is this an admission?

I personally don't see a link between Myk and BB, and I still feel Myk is scum, so I'm not ready to move yet, but if I can find a link between Myk and BB, or if Myk somehow absolves himself, or if it comes down to deadline and Myk isn't a valid lynch choice, I'll be moving my vote.

[GIEFF]

BB, you said you just agreed with my logic like a sheep and hopped on the wagon, but that's not what you said at the time.

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

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

eh heh heh...NO.

Do you no longer think this is scummy? When did you change your mind? Or did you just take my word for it that it was scummy, and you NEVER really thought it was scummy?

GIEFF-

Meh... your very closeminded and although

I agree with your general arguments,

I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit.

So you agree with my general arguments so long as their conclusion is not that you are scummy?

I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

I can see you're not interesting in having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate you responding to my 4 points, but when I responded to your responses and told you why I disagreed, instead of letting me know if you agree, or why you disagree, you choose to say:

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

YOU are the one who responded; I was simply continuing the discussion. If you aren't interested in a back-and-forth, then why did you answer the question, which was originally directed at mykonian? Do you have no answer to my responses? Surely if you think my logic is so horrible, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to reply, right?

I think the reason you felt the need to answer questions that were not directed at you is that you are interested in discrediting my case on Panzer in order to cover for your disengage from the Panzer wagon. "Oh no, they realized my unvote was odd, I better convince them that I really don't think GIEFF's case is valid, as that's the reason I gave." It's unfortunate for you that there is evidence of you agreeing with my case before it suited your needs not to.

Lying about your reasons for unvoting is just as scummy as lying about your reasons for voting.

[Zilla]

I agree with your case on BB, goat. I think he's likely to be scum.

Do you think Birthday scum says anything about Panzer, or vice versa? Do you think Myk, Birthday, and Panzer are the scum trio, or is it exclusive between them, or somewhere in the middle?

Please to answer?

[GIEFF]

I don't see how speculating about that does any good. Let's see what role people are before we start trying to find scum partners. We can't lynch more than one scum, so let's not try to.

I think Panzer is the scummiest, followed (closely) by Birthday, and then followed by mykonian. I very much doubt that I'm right about all three of them, though. And for all we know, there could very well be more or less than two scum.


And Zilla, you spent mountains of text defending BB, and now all of a sudden he's second on your scumlist?

[Zilla]

He ninja-posted a behemoth of his own that undercut my entire foundation, and basicaly was a slap to the face telling me my entire read on him was wrong.

If he'd answered the same way I had, and verified my read on him, he would still be where he was before. Instead, he systematically destroyed my entire view on why he did the things he's done.

[GIEFF]

Or maybe you saw him call you out on blatantly defending him, so you decided you had better stop?

Can you go into detail about how his post undercut your foundation? How does the way he answered affect the way you perceived goat's logic? Do you now think goat's case is a valid one?

[Zilla]

Give me a bit, this will be a big post...

[Zilla]

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."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.

First off, he meant the slip where he used the word "townie." Misrepresentation ++, suspicion ++.

Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?

Speaking of blatantly wrong, that's four people, dejkha was my predecessor. And where did GIEFF say he thought I was scum? Misrep++, suspicion++.

I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

Taking a phrase out of context, misrep++, suspicion++.

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

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

Defiant, unhelpful, and avoiding answer, suspicion++.

Now, onto the real meat.

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

Good, now add this to:

Wait, what? I found out what you were talking about by reading that post, and you did indeed list reasons you agreed with GIEFF. Now you're saying that Goat's right? Confidence in my perception of Birthday--, suspicion++.

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

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

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

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much.

Where did this suddenly come from? This statement, coming from left field, really had me questioning my read on BB.

Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Focusing on the "You just picked out the wrong reasons," it's entirely strange that he says this. In fact, this whole quote is strange. He's basically saying Goat's case is valid, which contradicts my view on how Goat's case was invalid.

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

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

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


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

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon.

I agree that BB was using GIEFF's logic, but I thought it made sense. BB is now campaigning to say that it didn't, odd behavior at best.

However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

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

First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest).

By this point, I was already entirely convinced what I thought I knew about BB was wrong. He's basically saying that his vote on Panzer was a move to draw out scum, but that he didn't actually want to lynch Panzer. Admirable to say now, but I find it a little to convenient, given that it now contradicts BOTH his previously stated reasons for voting Panzer.

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

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.

Here, he again pulls a switchback and says the reasons may have been wrong, but that Goat is actually right. Potentially, he's trying to nullify his case by taking ownership of it because he doesn't actually have a real defense.


Due to how he answered the next, my responses will be

underlined.

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

You just said you didn't vote Panzer for an actual reason, you said you were actually parroting GIEFF. Essentially, this validates Goat's point.

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

This reads as "You're wrong. I have a lack of solid stances because I don't have solid stances yet. Here's some distracting terminology that doesn't really address the actual accusation."

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

More "Your case is valid." response

[/quote]

This whole section was quite intriguing to me, as I had thought those four points invalid, mostly from his long vote post. Suddenly, he turns it around by saying that those points are entirely valid.

I believe I've already addressed his closing statements.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

Actually, it was because I was initially very dubious of Goat pushing on BB, especially when his entire stated reasons were three things I didn't really see or agree with, and especially because his case seemed really weak. I looked into his case on BB and I didn't see what he was talking about aside from the uncommitted stances, and I missed the retraction about his motivation for voting Panzer, if he had even made that by that point, so all those factors had me thinking the case was pretty bad. Now, however, BB seems to acknowledge that the case was actually solid, and, most importantly,

reaches the right conclusions

.

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, you said you just agreed with my logic like a sheep and hopped on the wagon, but that's not what you said at the time.

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

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

eh heh heh...NO.

Do you no longer think this is scummy? When did you change your mind? Or did you just take my word for it that it was scummy, and you NEVER really thought it was scummy?

I never said it wasn't scummy. I never changed my mind. I took your word for and made up reasons that were relatively sensible. I wasn't really playing this game, was okay to lynch Panzer (not expecting it to happen, but figured the information would be worth it) and that I could leave the wagon quietly, but this didn't happen. I am not saying that these actions are void of being scummy. They can be very scummy. STUPID scum, but could be scummy. On the other hand, this does make me stupid (or particularly lazy) townie too, but I digress.

GIEFF-

Meh... your very closeminded and although

I agree with your general arguments,

I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit.

So you agree with my general arguments so long as their conclusion is not that you are scummy?

No, no, no. Out of context much? I agree with your general arguments, but I feel that your narrow view on Panzer has prevented you from taking any significant steps toward helping town. (Pre the BB incident.)

I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

I can see you're not interesting in having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate you responding to my 4 points, but when I responded to your responses and told you why I disagreed, instead of letting me know if you agree, or why you disagree, you choose to say:

Your method of scum hunting does suck, and it isn't reasonable to waste my time discussing why it sucks. Take that to the general discussion, which I never go to visit.

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

YOU are the one who responded; I was simply continuing the discussion. If you aren't interested in a back-and-forth, then why did you answer the question, which was originally directed at mykonian? Do you have no answer to my responses? Surely if you think my logic is so horrible, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to reply, right?

I felt like I needed to remind you that your points suck. I don't have any problems answering your responses if they seem worth my time. And your logic is terrible but not so much so I feel the need to correct it.

I think the reason you felt the need to answer questions that were not directed at you is that you are interested in discrediting my case on Panzer in order to cover for your disengage from the Panzer wagon.

This is stupid? If I discredit the Panzer wagon is does not negate the fact that I removed myself from the wagon oddly in anyone's eyes, and it doesn't change the fact that I still think the wagon is, at the moment, stupid.

"Oh no, they realized my unvote was odd, I better convince them that I really don't think GIEFF's case is valid, as that's the reason I gave."

Worst line of reasoning ever.

It's unfortunate for you that there is evidence of you agreeing with my case before it suited your needs not to.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I hate the fish your third cousin twice removed ate too.

Lying about your reasons for unvoting is just as scummy as lying about your reasons for voting.

*Shrugs* I lied about both. I don't really care if you view it either way, you'll just have to assume that there is a chance I am either side (which is possible even if I was scum) and find that I am town or not. It's still your decision, but we'll see what happens.

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."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.

First off, he meant the slip where he used the word "townie." Misrepresentation ++, suspicion ++.

No misrepresentation, but a misunderstanding. However, nice job letting him defend himself. Not that I care too much.

Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?

Speaking of blatantly wrong, that's four people, dejkha was my predecessor. And where did GIEFF say he thought I was scum? Misrep++, suspicion++.

You clearly don't read posts. Misrep ++ <--OMG! THE HORRIBLE PLUS SIGNS!!*

I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

Taking a phrase out of context, misrep++, suspicion++.

*Stabs you in the heart* You're an idiot.

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

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

Defiant, unhelpful, and avoiding answer, suspicion++.

*Continues stabbing heart* This is entertaining.

Now, onto the real meat.

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

Good, now add this to:

Wait, what? I found out what you were talking about by reading that post, and you did indeed list reasons you agreed with GIEFF. Now you're saying that Goat's right? Confidence in my perception of Birthday--, suspicion++.

You're suspecting me with this load of bullshit when you could have simply said: "Oh, hey look, he agrees with Goat's reasoning that BB is scummy" and left it there? Weirdo...

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

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

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

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much.

Where did this suddenly come from? This statement, coming from left field, really had me questioning my read on BB.

How? It essentially says, Yes I did something scummy, and here is the reason. It isn't good. I'm not even pretending it is a good reason. But it is there, it is the reason, and you'll just have to either accept it or not. I can't force you and I'll only try in order to help town win.

Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Focusing on the "You just picked out the wrong reasons," it's entirely strange that he says this. In fact, this whole quote is strange. He's basically saying Goat's case is valid, which contradicts my view on how Goat's case was invalid.

OH GOD FORBID ANYONE AGREES THAT THEY ARE SCUMMY OR THAT THEY SAY, THE INFALLIBLE ZILLA IS WRONG! Please, this is weak.

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

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

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


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

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon.

I agree that BB was using GIEFF's logic, but I thought it made sense. BB is now campaigning to say that it didn't, odd behavior at best.

When did it strike you that I was odd? The blood in the coffee, the sk bread crumbing. OH! Was it the point where my post made sense until you butchered it into little piece that look like incoherent fragments? Again, this makes perfect sense. I didn't pay attention, I didn't care about this game, I went with general consensus, fabricated a weak generic vote, and went with it. I started rereading just about the time I unvoted (I think right after, because I reread about the time I read Gieff's post) and have actually played this game from there. No it isn't the smartest thing I've ever done, but it happened, end of subject.

NOTE: I respond in bold in the quote below where Zilla responded by underlining. It is mostly Argumentum Ad Hominem with a few points. Enjoy.

However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

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

First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest).

By this point, I was already entirely convinced what I thought I knew about BB was wrong. He's basically saying that his vote on Panzer was a move to draw out scum, but that he didn't actually want to lynch Panzer. Admirable to say now, but I find it a little to convenient, given that it now contradicts BOTH his previously stated reasons for voting Panzer.

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

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.

Here, he again pulls a switchback and says the reasons may have been wrong, but that Goat is actually right. Potentially, he's trying to nullify his case by taking ownership of it because he doesn't actually have a real defense.

Me wrong and Goat right=obvious. You act like this is a big surprise? I never claimed to have a defense. In fact, when I vote you, I am like: of course I don't have a defense, and this is the reason why!
And just because I "take ownership of the case" doesn't mean that the case is nulled. This entire proposal is silly and I can't wait to hear the more sensible response of Goat. (Will he necessarily agree with me? Oh, hell no. He'll probably attack me again, but I am sure he will, having read the entire post and put it together BEFORE taking it apart, will actually make a good point or two.) You're scum in my eyes.

Due to how he answered the next, my responses will be

underlined.

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

You just said you didn't vote Panzer for an actual reason, you said you were actually parroting GIEFF. Essentially, this validates Goat's point.

My response validated Goat's point. You are a master of the obvious.

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

This reads as "You're wrong. I have a lack of solid stances because I don't have solid stances yet. Here's some distracting terminology that doesn't really address the actual accusation."

You're wrong? Your stances are also generally all over the place. Bah, no one has a REAL stance on everyone in the game. We have 3 or so people we have good feelings about and the rest are: Well, maybes.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

More "Your case is valid." response

You act like I am opossing his case? God, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

This whole section was quite intriguing to me, as I had thought those four points invalid, mostly from his long vote post. Suddenly, he turns it around by saying that those points are entirely valid.

I believe I've already addressed his closing statements.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

Actually, it was because I was initially very dubious of Goat pushing on BB, especially when his entire stated reasons were three things I didn't really see or agree with, and especially because his case seemed really weak. I looked into his case on BB and I didn't see what he was talking about aside from the uncommitted stances, and I missed the retraction about his motivation for voting Panzer, if he had even made that by that point, so all those factors had me thinking the case was pretty bad. Now, however, BB seems to acknowledge that the case was actually solid, and, most importantly,

reaches the right conclusions

.

Conclusion he made:

BB is scummy.
I agree this is true, however:

BB=/=scum. (NOTE: On Day 1, it is really hard or rare to prove a person is scum 100%.)

I know I am scummy, and while I dunno how far it will convince people, but I know Zilla is scum because I forced her to back pedal. (Scum would never expect a town to do this, I'm sure.)

I love her reaction, and I think Gieff might actually be able to catch this scum. Also, notice the lack of vote on me from Zilla? I have 2 vote, right? So why affraid to vote me?
I dub what you have written in post 396 to be equivalent to nothing. Here is the reason: You said what I said, except made it out to be that I argued against Goat when I did no such thing. Talk about misrepresentations.

[GIEFF]

Unvote

Vote Beyond_Birthday

[Dourgrim]

Long-ish post coming, just want to doublecheck something before I post.