Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[qwints]

This is a very good game so far. There are a solid core of aggressive players driving detailed discussion. This has meant that the game has taken me longer than anticipated to read up on.

Here are my thoughts so far:
Mykonia and panzer come off as the scummiest players right now, and they could certainly be part of a team. Panzer attacked Mykonia early on and then tried to dismiss it as a joke, despite claiming that his vote "moved us out of the random voting phase." Here's the key points about them that I find scummy:

Panzer
*Seriously votes Mykonia and then tries to back off of it
*Started an unproductive discussion about whether to go after the sk or the mafia
*Attacked GIEFF for tunnel vision rather than dealing with the attack
*Most seriously, asked why Mykonia was scum in post 350

Mykonia (aka: the unhelpful, it burns)
I'll flesh this out soon, but mostly I was bothered by him describing what had happened rather than providing analysis. I also see signs of unhelpful opportunism

On the most likely town side:
Zilla
Asking for a summary is suspicious, but it suggests a lazy player rather than a scummy one. Since then, her posts have been aggressive and fairly detailed.

GIEFF
I'm a sucker for detailed, well-formatted posts. Solid, aggressive pro-town play on day 1.

I've read through the game, but only really analyzed the first 1/3 or so. The arguments are fairly complex and it's hard for me to deal with this game in the blocks of free time I have during the week. Once I get fully caught up, expect me to be more active.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

[Dourgrim]

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of

your

lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch? Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself

be

a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone. The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

I'm thinking Panzer is the right choice for today's lynch. However,

before we start voting,

I want to hear the lurkers' opinions on my logic, and I want to hear from GIEFF (who has been strangely absent today), Goatrevolt, and (brace yourselves) mykonian. I think myko's reaction to this could be key, and so I urge the Town to not lynch anyone until we've gotten a clear, detailed answer from him.

Make sense?

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: I'm not trying to lead the Town here, I'm just presenting my opinion on what I think optimal play is here. Do what you want.

[Zilla]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage

This is true. I'm suspicious of some of the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer. Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).

I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally, I did not find it conclusive, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.

So here we have a summary showing why he suspects panzer, but he has yet to explain why he hasn't voted for him. That's coming up:

I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now. I think Panzer has been scummy, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet. Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle. I want to scour the thread first and try to get a better feel. Furthermore, I'm still suspicious of MacavityLock's transformation from "Panzer is SK to Panzer is also top pick for mafia" and I want him to answer my questions. Hearing from Zilla would also be good.

Ah, so he "doesn't want day to end yet," and he is attacking MacavityLock, who had been attacking Panzer, and also only Mykonian is defending Panzer.

If you scum radar is tuned properly, you should be detecting a large blip onscreen.

Also, note after this that he attacks Panzer, with this:

Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him

slips were minor tells

Really? What changed? Compare the above bolded to the below from early game:

I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.

So, basically, he has a plethora of reasons to vote Panzer, but he won't vote Panzer because only Mykonian is defending him (hmm.. Panzer, Mykonian, and Goat?), and he "doesn't want the day to end yet." Panzer is no longer top vote getter, and it comes down to his vote on Beyond Birthday. When asked for a current account (now having two opportunities to respond), he instead points to his outdated assessment, that no longer holds weight.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

[GIEFF]

I have been following the back-and-forth between Panzer, Zilla, and Goat, and don't have anything to add right now. I considered commenting on Panzer's post about Zilla when he first made it, but I'm glad I didn't as I think Zilla's response gave us a lot of information that it might not have had I stepped in and answered for her.

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

I look at it differently. It's not that the lack of the defense is the cause for a lynch, its' the fact that he's done so many scummy things. Not defending against valid points is PLENTY reason to lynch someone.

I agree Panzer is linked to more people, but I think B_B is the best lynch for today. His "defense" was horrible, he's had multiple inconsistencies in logic, and he is needlessly antagonistic.



Goat reads as quite towny to me, Zilla. I understand his suspicion of quick wagons with little opposition.



Could you summarize your case on Goat in a few sentences, as Dourgrim has asked others to do?

[Zilla]

Goat is softly defensive of Panzer while trying to maintain that he thinks he's scummy, he shares the antagonistic streak with BB, he's hyperreactive as soon as anyone says ANYTHING about him is suspicious, he constantly deflects and refuses to answer point blank questions, his arguments are sidetracking, and a lot of his "aggressive" play is only superficially aggressive.

My main case is on Mykonian who I already answered for, please don't misrepresent me as dodging Dourgrim's request, I was one of the first to answer his call.

[PJ.]

Panzer didn't read this post.

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

I see where you got that out of:

(seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

I'm talking about the

argument

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

I also said this:

The SK thing was stupid, the first person who said "SK" might be the SK if there even is an SK, but beyond that, that whole argument has gotten way out of hand.

I did read this post, and now I've read it three times, and I still don't buy it. I think that is a BS explanation of voting and trying to lynch someone who disagrees with because you want those suspicious of you to die.

[PJ.]

EBWOP: Also I disagree with Dourgrim and I don't see how suddenly me and BB are the only two lynchs. I think Zilla is a completely viable lynch candidate but seeing as I'm the only one, and it's starting to look like me or my other leading candidate for scum, I'm gonna

Unvote, Vote:Beyond_Birthday

[GIEFF]

I believe that's L-2, so let's be careful about future B_B votes. If you want to vote, just use HOS instead. If we get enough votes and HOS's so that votes + HOS = lynch, I think a claim is in order.

[Zilla]

If myk is "suspicious of me" that's news to me, but that's to be expected from panzer, I guess.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Hm.. somehow Panzer's vote change rubs me the wrong way though it is explained well enough. I'm going to assume it is paranoia.
Moving right along:
I still think Zilla is scum, so:

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

[PJ.]

i thought he had voted you at 1 point but I was wrong. Point still stands as he had expressed that you were scummy for asking for your asking of a summary.

[Goatrevolt]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

I've told you already. This is how I play mafia. When someone attacks me, I defend it and I do so thoroughly. This is why I've never been lynched as town before, because when someone brings up a reason to believe I'm scum, I point out why it's wrong. I also, as I've said, catch scum based on how they attack me. You are starting to move towards the scum spectrum based on the increasing illogical and absurd nature of your attacks. You have completely failed to address or even explain why me "aggressively defending" myself is scummy whatsoever. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with. With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you. You declined to comment, except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.

You accuse me of dodging questions. I have not dodged a single question all game. However, you've done a bit of dodging and deflection. Yes, that's right, I'm calling you out. This is the point where you turn around and say how my playstyle is scummy because I'm turning it back on you. Deal with it. Here's what I mean: Throughout this game, you've continued to attack me for poor reasons. I've defended myself against those reasons. No problems so far. Then, you ignore my defense (in essence, proving me right), and instead attack me for being too hypersensitive, or for defending myself too aggressively, or some other bullshit you use to justify your unjustifiable suspicion. That's deflection. That's dodgy. That's downright scummy. You attack me, which prompts me to defend myself. Then you say I'm scummy for defending myself, completely ignoring the weak reason you used to attack me in the first place.

As for your assertion that I haven't answered your question. I have answered it. I answered it immediately when you asked it. I linked to a fairly recent post that provides my opinion on Panzer that has not changed since when you had last asked me.

That post is my current opinion on Panzer.

And then I see you took a completely different post and just attacked it. You asked for my current opinion on Panzer. I provided a link to a post that gave my current opinion on Panzer. Then you attack a completely different post. Zilla, the misrep is all you.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

And this is weak, weak, weak. Your entire means of scum hunting is based on pairing players. Pairing players is dumb, meaningless, ineffective unless one of those players is dead. For example, you think I'm scummy based on ties to Mykonian and Panzer. I assume you mean if Mykonian and Panzer are scum it increases the chances that I am also scum. However, that is invalid, and useless suspicion until you know the alignments of Panzer and Mykonian, which you don't, unless you're scum.

So, to boil it down. Your suspicion on me is based on this:

1. Ties to players who's alignments you cannot know unless you're scum.
2. I defend myself against your accusations.
3. You don't like my playstyle

Does that look like a solid case to anyone? Looks pretty weak to me.

------

This is the point where Zilla goes nuts because I again am defending against her accusations in such a "hypersensitive" way, and there is a likely chance she ignores what I actually say in favor of just attacking me for defending myself.

I'll address other questions in my next post, I just had to clear this up first.

[Goatrevolt]

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

I agree with the gist of this. There's really no concrete evidence to support that one of Birthday or Zilla has to be scum. BB makes a good point about Zilla dismissing the case on him prematurely, however I still think the reason she did so was based entirely on her continued angsty attitude towards me. To back this up, I'll point out that she dismissed the case on BB before even knowing what it was about, simply because I was the one who suggested it.

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch? Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself

be

a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone. The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

I disagree with this. You're saying that since the BB case involves WIFOM, we should ignore it. I would agree if the case on BB was based on WIFOM. The case on him is based on solid evidence suggesting he has been scummy. Evidence he agrees with. The WIFOM is entirely based on how he has chosen to defend himself (via not defending himself).

I agree, though, that we need to hear from lurkers and get some concrete opinions from them before we go ahead with anything.

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

Right now, she's 50/50 to me. She was at the top of my town list a while back, but the manner in which she continues to assault me with bad logic, and then call me scummy when I defend myself (but yet she ignores my actual defenses, likely because she knows I'm right) has struck me as scummy. If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.

In essence, as of late, I don't get the impression she's actually trying to determine whether or not I'm scum. I get the impression she's trying to push the idea that I'm scum. She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others. She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.

[subgenius]

I'm thinking Panzer is the right choice for today's lynch. However,

before we start voting,

I want to hear the lurkers' opinions on my logic, and I want to hear from GIEFF (who has been strangely absent today), Goatrevolt, and (brace yourselves) mykonian. I think myko's reaction to this could be key, and so I urge the Town to not lynch anyone until we've gotten a clear, detailed answer from him.

Make sense?

I agree with this. I think it's unlikely that we're going to break much more ground in Day 1, and though I think that the case against BB and Panzer are both fairly strong, we have a lot more to gain from knowing Panzer's alignment.

[Zilla]

Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,

he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer

.

I've told you already. This is how I play mafia.

Dodging questions?

When someone attacks me, I defend it and I do so thoroughly. This is why I've never been lynched as town before, because when someone brings up a reason to believe I'm scum, I point out why it's wrong. I also, as I've said, catch scum based on how they attack me. You are starting to move towards the scum spectrum based on the increasing illogical and absurd nature of your attacks. You have completely failed to address or even explain why me "aggressively defending" myself is scummy whatsoever. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

Yet to address the panzer question, and you demonstrate the sidetracking aspect of your play right here. I did already answer the "aggressively defensive" question already; town don't overreact to scrutiny, scum do. Scum want to shut down any possible means of convicting them at an exaggerated cost, while town go about diffusing their accusations in a different, usually softer way. I've said this before, you're misrepresenting again, which brings up the next point.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with.

Another fine example of misrepresentation. Please point to where I agreed that my "entire reason for voting [you] was frustration." I never said it was based on frustration, and I denied it and explained every time that it was from the scummy nature of not wanting to be accountable. Thank you for demonstrating my point though.

With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you.

This is what I call misrepresentation. I listed very concisely why, and you call it "cutting through the horrible reasons." I call it "Spinning it to make me look scummy."

You declined to comment

Oh?
Really?
Did I?

except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.

Nevermind that you have been implicitly defending panzer all day while you say one thing and do another. You've called him scummy but NEVER HAVE YOU VOTED PANZER, especially when the stated reasons you weren't voting panzer to begin with have been removed.

You accuse me of dodging questions. I have not dodged a single question all game.

POINT BLANK QUESTION:
What is your current view on panzer?

However, you've done a bit of dodging and deflection. Yes, that's right, I'm calling you out. This is the point where you turn around and say how my playstyle is scummy because I'm turning it back on you. Deal with it.

Why thank you for putting words in my reply box, continuing to misrepresent me.

Here's what I mean: Throughout this game, you've continued to attack me for poor reasons.

That's subjective.

I've defended myself against those reasons. No problems so far. Then, you ignore my defense (in essence, proving me right),

Where's the logic in that, and also, don't be a hypocrite when you've clearly ignored half my posts (see preceding links and rebuttals).

and instead attack me for being too hypersensitive,

an establish scum tell

or for defending myself too aggressively, or some other bullshit you use to justify your unjustifiable suspicion.

You know, aside from the valid point that you

STILL

have not answered the question that I have asked when you have had FOUR TIMES to do so.

That's deflection. That's dodgy.

And just what accusations have I been deflecting from? You say I've ignored your defense, but what attack of yours have I ignored? What attacks have I "deflected" from? Another misrepresentation, to prove my point again, but I'm guessing that unless I include this intentionally hypocritical phrase,

you're just going to ignore it and deflect again

.

You attack me, which prompts me to defend myself. Then you say I'm scummy for defending myself, completely ignoring the weak reason you used to attack me in the first place.

First off, I'm not satisfied with your continued attempts to avoid being accountable, and that is STILL one of my main reasons for suspecting you, and it is not a weak case.

Second, I am not attacking only for defending yourself but the manner in which you are defending yourself, that is specifically scummy. Your attempt at generalization to reduce my arguement (and again misrepresent my case) should be noted.

As for your assertion that I haven't answered your question. I have answered it. I answered it immediately when you asked it. I linked to a fairly recent post that provides my opinion on Panzer that has not changed since when you had last asked me.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked what you currently thought of panzer. I want an original statement from you right now that you can be held accountable for on where you stand on Panzer. The only reason I can think that you continue to link to your "both sides of the fence" stance that I

FOS'd

you for is that you know it will be politically risky to say anything definite about panzer.

That post is my current opinion on Panzer.

Than my FOS stands, for the stated reasons.

And then I see you took a completely different post and just attacked it. You asked for my current opinion on Panzer. I provided a link to a post that gave my current opinion on Panzer. Then you attack a completely different post. Zilla, the misrep is all you.

Your linked posts' opinion on panzer was entirely taken from 240, Mister Misrep. Everything else in that post said nothing.

I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.

And this is weak, weak, weak. Your entire means of scum hunting is based on pairing players. Pairing players is dumb, meaningless, ineffective unless one of those players is dead.

A perfect ploy for scum to push, especially given the climate. Pairing living players is never an exercise in futility; in fact I would have won one of my first games here if I had continued that line of inquiry instead of abandoning it

at the behest of the mafioso that I had paired

.

For example, you think I'm scummy based on ties to Mykonian and Panzer.

Among other things.

I assume you mean if Mykonian and Panzer are scum it increases the chances that I am also scum. However, that is invalid, and useless suspicion until you know the alignments of Panzer and Mykonian, which you don't, unless you're scum.

It's not invalid and useless speculation at all. It's answered by the very first part of this quote block;

if

Mykonian and Panzer are scum, it

increases the chances

that you are also scum. how is that useless suspicion? The only reason I can see why you're trying to discredit this line of reasoning is because it is entirely valid and you are trying to lay some ground to argue your way out of it. You do not address that you are, in fact, defending Mykonian and Panzer, and that their alignment will certainly say a lot about yours.

So, to boil it down. Your suspicion on me is based on this:

Misrepresentation, HO!

1. Ties to players who's alignments you cannot know unless you're scum.

Yes. I don't have to know them to set up the contingency that if they are scum, you are also likely scum.

2. I defend myself against your accusations.

Thank you for giving a textbook half-truth. You defend yourself in a manner analogous to scum defending themselves.

3. You don't like my playstyle

Where did this come from, unless by "my playstyle" you mean "my penchant to dodge questions like a well-versed politician, my method of 'scumhunting' being based on 'how people attack me,' my ability to misconstrue and warp those attacks, and my middle-management-esque ability to shirk accountability." If that's what you meant, then, yes, I don't like your playstyle, because it's scummy, and if you are town, you're jamming my radar.

This is the point where Zilla goes nuts because I again am defending against her accusations in such a "hypersensitive" way, and there is a likely chance she ignores what I actually say in favor of just attacking me for defending myself.

This is the point where Goat engages in the quote war, tries to generalize and warp my arguments, ignores half my posts and the meaning behind my points and instead whittles it to Semantics, uses emotional language (I'm also guilty, I'll freely admit) to escalate conflict, and still doesn't answer the question: What is his current view on panzer?

I'll address other questions in my next post,

for a change?

I just had to clear this up first.

Or attempt to muddy the waters, it seems.

[Dourgrim]

(Why, oh why, am I incapable of a normal-sized post in this game? Sorry, guys.)

Hm.. somehow Panzer's vote change rubs me the wrong way though it is explained well enough. I'm going to assume it is paranoia.

For once, I think Panzer explained himself pretty clearly: he's voting for you because you're the other lynch choice currently on the block besides him. It's a self-preservation vote, pure and simple. Hardly noble, but understandable considering how long he's been under the microscope, regardless of his alignment. No tell.

Moving right along:
I still think Zilla is scum, so:

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

Forgive me for speaking on other players' behalf, but personally I think Zilla and Goat are having a pretty big playstyle clash right now that both are interpreting as "scummy behavior" on the other's part. I think this is causing both of them to nitpick too much at each other and is distracting them both from the game at large. (Incidentally, in retrospect I think this may also have happened between GIEFF and I in the early game.) Zilla doesn't feel all that scummy, she feels pissed off and therefore blowing up everything. Ditto for Goat (re: Zilla, anyway). And both of them seem like they're misrepresenting each other as a result. Therefore, no tell.

(GIEFF is still annoyingly calm, as always.)

Also, Zilla, the wall of mini-quotes above is downright annoying and is not helping your case at ALL, at least in my eyes. All you're doing is eliminating all context from the sentences you're quoting, and no matter which side you're on, you're making your case nearly impossible to read without being overwhelmed with your spin. Please stop.

If any of you feel differently about your cases, please feel free to disagree, but that's the read I'm getting as of right now.

You're saying that since the BB case involves WIFOM, we should ignore it. I would agree if the case on BB was based on WIFOM. The case on him is based on solid evidence suggesting he has been scummy. Evidence he agrees with. The WIFOM is entirely based on how he has chosen to defend himself (via not defending himself).

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I don't believe that he's the correct choice for lynching

right now

. I most definitely do NOT want to ignore BB's scumminess, but I do think we can learn more from a Panzer lynch than we can a BB lynch... and, let's face it, BB

could

theoretically just be a lazy Townie who got busted not playing the game. I think the only way to find out is to let him live a bit and see what he does. I don't think he is just a lazy Townie, mind you, but it is a possibility that should at least be considered. Let me try to rephrase this: I think that either BB is scum, or up until now he's been playing in a fashion that is not helping the Town. Either way you're right, that makes him a good lynch. However, Panzer meets both of those possibilities in my eyes as well, and Panzer has links to myko and others, whereas BB doesn't (except negatively with Zilla since her flip, which will actually become more relevant as the game continues). If we lynch Panzer and he comes up scum, we learn something interesting about GIEFF, myko, and BB... I'm not so naive to think we

prove

anything about them, but we definitely learn things. Linkage is not the end-all-be-all of scumhunting techniques, but we've got a 18+ page Day One to study after this is all done... it seems like there should be some easy patterns to pick out on Day Two, don't you think?

I agree with this. I think it's unlikely that we're going to break much more ground in Day 1, and though I think that the case against BB and Panzer are both fairly strong, we have a lot more to gain from knowing Panzer's alignment.

While I'm flattered that you agree with me, you get a

medium-sized FoS: subgenius

for implying that this Day's usefulness has neared its end. Long days = good for Town, and the longer the better. The more discussion there is to be analyzed later in the game, the more chances there are for sharp players to find scum. You look like you're trying to end the day, and that's a very very bad thing while we're still debating.

OK, on to other points of my late-night rants. I HATE FRIGGIN' LURKERS! Considering the Watched Topics function of these boards, the ability to receive email when a thread receives a reply, and the funny little light-up icons in front of each thread, there is NO EXCUSE for lurking this long. A day or two I can see, but come ON, people!

MOD: can we please see prods in the thread whenever they're required?

[Zilla]

Right now, she's 50/50 to me. She was at the top of my town list a while back, but the manner in which she continues to assault me with bad logic, and then call me scummy when I defend myself (but yet she ignores my actual defenses, likely because she knows I'm right) has struck me as scummy.

Then you know where I'm coming from when you misconstrue nearly all of my points.


And here we go with your famous letter-based analogies:

If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.

If A is the initial case of you avoiding accountability, I'm still arguing that with you, but you're saying I'm "brushing it aside" simply because you haven't actually answered the initial accusation, which has further been supported by, again, your lack of answer to the point-blank question of what your current view on panzer is. I suppose if you thought you had provided what I'd asked for by linking your older post, I'd be more understanding, but I give you more credit than that, and I would think you know exactly how that benefits you in the realm of being unaccountable. Perhaps I actually was wrong, but that lowers my opinion of your integrity quite a bit.

If B is the reaction to the defense, that is your entire method of scumhunting. You say you catch scum based on their method of attack, and in fact, you accuse me of being scum based on my method of attack. How is that different from me accusing you of being scum based on your method of defense?

In essence, as of late, I don't get the impression she's actually trying to determine whether or not I'm scum.

You mean I'm not receptive to your 'arguments?' This falls into the same category that BB outlined, saying that you're suspecting me for disagreeing with you. I find that just about every "defense" you've offered has been based on a misunderstanding or a misconstruction of events, and so I've had to amend inconsistencies. Instead of answering those inconsistencies, you do exactly as you accused me of and instead move on to another argument.

I get the impression she's trying to push the idea that I'm scum.

You mean I'm pushing a case? *GASP* ONLY SCUM CAN DO THAT!

She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others.

I dare you to find an example where I outright ignore something, rather show your inconsistent behavior.

She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.

So far, your defenses have matched what scum would do in the same situation. There's town defending themselves, and scum defending themselves. The myraid of misinformation in your posts highly contributes to your defense being scummy. You go so far in defending yourself that you skew facts, again like a guilty politician.

There was a point near the end of our initial debacle where you had me convinced you were town, but, similar to your view on me, my view on you has changed. You use destructive language to prolong conflict and attempt to reap benefit from the prolonged conflict by saying that I'm no longer trying to 'determine whether you are scum.' It's entirely likely that you shut down any mode of convincing me otherwise when you resort to such a confrontational presentation of your defense.

[Zilla]

@ Dour: I was afraid of that kind of reaction to quote-warring, I know that's why I didn't really bother reading between you and GIEFF. It's tough to remain thorough in a different style though, and I really do believe I've raised some good points in there.

It's a hard thing to change, especially in this type of conflict. Sorry for the simulpost in which I continue to do the same. :/

It's especially hard when so many of Goat's points involve altering the past, and really need correcting. I can't just let falsehood stand, and if I don't challenge him, there's the risk that his misinterpretations are to be believed, regardless of if he posted them as town or scum, and that's a bad thing.

Regardless of ANY of this, I still want goat to explicitly say his view on panzer, not just saying "it's the same as 'this'." He's clearly shown he has the energy to debate minutia at length, he should be able to provide his view on panzer without too much fuss.

[Dourgrim]

OK, I just noticed something that changes my viewpoint here: both Zilla and Goat are nuking the hell out of each other in the thread, and yet neither one is voting for the other. Zilla's voting for myko, and Goat's voting for BB. At least Goat has said that he thinks BB is the correct lynch for today and is voting accordingly; what gives, Zilla?

And, to live by my own standards...

unvote: BB

vote: Panzer

[Zilla]

Myk hasn't answered standing accusations, I don't want to move my vote just because he's lurking. This is a long standing principle of mine. The difference between my case on myk and my case on goat is that goat is answering his accusations (even if poorly), and so I can actually debate with him. Rest assured, when Myk answers, I'll probably continue to lay into him as hard, if not harder than I'm laying into Goat, but at this point, it's fruitless to beat a dead horse and recite my case against an unresponsive Myk.

I don't usually ascribe to lynching the loudest target. It's the lurky type that really bug me, and I'm wary of being led astray just because someone else is more vocal.

I do agree that lynching Birthday gives us less information than lynching panzer. I think Mykonian is a better candidate between he and Panzer, since, if only one of them is scum, I would think it to be Myk, and the only person Myk doesn't tell us about that panzer does would be GIEFF, and I don't have particular interest in GIEFF at this point.

[mykonian]

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

While you were attacking me, your vote didn't follow. I reacted to your aggressiveness by saying something like, "vote me, if you are so sure", so we don't get the attacks from you until the bandwagon is filled enough that there is no risk for you anymore.

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

It was for a random vote, nothing serious. Just wait what happens night 1 before we get serious talk about a SK. I never intended to get big talks about it, but other people are making something out of my words that they were not.

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

no reason for you to take a random vote reason serious.

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

when you listen to it as were it serious.

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

I put in a logical error in my random vote, I expect people to vote me. Someone goes even further and attacks me for the SK business: I didn't expect that. But anyway, nothing unnatural there.

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

First time I read this. Sorry. But don't expect from me that I put myself in the spotlight. Attention on me is not usefull and antitown. So asking for it would be foolish.

My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.[/quote]

[GIEFF]

I don't usually ascribe to lynching the loudest target. It's the lurky type that really bug me, and I'm wary of being led astray just because someone else is more vocal.

I think we should all keep this in mind. If I were scum in a game with a lot of vocal townies, I'd just let them hammer away at each other and hide in the background. We can't let this strategy be a valid one; it is too easy.



Zilla and Goat, I'm trying to read what you are arguing about, but my eyes just keep glazing over. Put the egos aside for a second and ask yourselves if you REALLY find the other one scummy, or if you're just arguing minutiae in an effort to prove yourselves right (which is what your latest posts seem like to me). Honestly read back over the thread and see how your reasoning progresses.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla and Goat, I'm trying to read what you are arguing about, but my eyes just keep glazing over. Put the egos aside for a second and ask yourselves if you REALLY find the other one scummy, or if you're just arguing minutiae in an effort to prove yourselves right (which is what your latest posts seem like to me). Honestly read back over the thread and see how your reasoning progresses.

Eh, no, I don't really think she's scum. At least, I'm not interested in lynching her today. I thought Dejkha seemed pretty townie, and Zilla hasn't really been necessarily scummy, although I think she is dead wrong on nearly every topic. I don't want to let my personal aversion to her nitpicking at me affect my opinion.

She continues to attack me over not providing an answer to her question. However, in the my first post after she asked me a question (what is your current view on Panzer) I linked to a post (295) that gave my current opinion. That is providing an answer to her question. Maybe I didn't format my answer in the exact manner she wanted, but I answered the question, and it pisses me off to have her constantly assert I did not. She then proceeded to attack my post 240. However, I had linked to 295 when I answered her question, not 240, which made me even more frustrated.

I'm not going to answer her long posts anymore. If she has questions, I will answer them, but I'm not going back and forth. Basically, long story short is that she suspects I'm scum over things that are essentially a facet of my playstyle. No amount of discussion is going to change her mind on that.

For example, I always defend myself like this as town. Always. Springlullaby can attest to me defending myself in this exact same manner in our previous game. In fact, she FoS'd me for overreacting to her original suspicion on me. We had this exact same discussion. To be honest, I'm quite a bit more aggressive in my defense as town than scum. I leave you to check up on that at your own whim. I think Zilla is wrong in attributing "scum" ways to defend themselves and "town" ways to defend themselves. If the town way to defend yourself is to be softspoken, then scum are just going to defend themselves in a softspoken manner to appear like a townie. I believe that saying a player is too aggressive in their own defense is an entirely subjective argument.

She also thinks I'm detracting from scumhunting. I disagree with that. I think my pressure on Panzer/Macavity/BB beg to differ, but there's little I can do to change her mind. Likewise, I find her method of pairing players together to be a highly ineffective way to scumhunt prior to knowing the alignment of any of the players in question. I've never seen that actually work out.

If she thinks I'm scum because I don't play the same way as her, or don't do things the way she wants me to do them, then so be it. There's nothing I can do to change her mind. It's not even worth it for me to try.

Her only point against me that is unrelated to my playstyle is how I have handled the Panzer situation. To be honest, that is somewhat of a fair point. I do not have a solid read on Panzer. I think there are inconsistencies in his play. I also feel that he "reads" townie. Those are conflicting opinions. Do I go with the logic that says he's scummy, or do I go with my own gut that he feels townie? I made this known to her in Post 295, which is what I posted when she asked for a current opinion on Panzer.

----------

I agree that there are probably scum among the lurkers, who are having a field day sitting back and watching right now. I don't want to have us end the day with a lynch without getting them more into the forefront, first.

With that being said, I also disagree with Dour that long days = more helpful days. Not all discussion is helpful to the town. Longer days don't necessarily make it more likely that we catch scum, or make it more useful to catching scum later.