militant wrote:ting wrote:unvote. Vote:Panzerjager
For making a big thing out of a small thing.
I didn't like this post because ting is effectively voting Panzejager for creating and stimulating discussion. To start to discussion you have to make a case and it would be hard to start if you only ever focused on the huge mistakes a player might make. By focusing on any possible mistake it gets discussion going and as Panzerjager said he was "propelling us out of random voting" which I see as good in a way. Bad in another way though...
You don't need to blow things out of proportion to create discussion. I point to the fact that panzer himself later withdrew his initial attack on myko that it was indeed a small thing, and that that was a more than valid reason for a vote.
[quote="militant]
SL wrote:Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.
I dislike the way you so openly advocate a bandwagon so early in the day. I'm not defending djekha's actions but merely commenting on SL's actions. [/quote]
I disagee. Wagons are a good source of info, especially early in the day.
militant wrote:SL wrote:I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO.
You don't know who the town are in the group of people playing now unless of course your mafia. A minor slip perhaps.
??? It's pretty clear SL was refering to all the players in this game. You're reading scuminess where there's absolutely none at all. This is even worse than GIEFF's.
panzer wrote:Then Ting, read my post, and ask does that apply to you.
She is saying that Goatrevolt is delibrately cutting of new information by not giving a SUMMARY of PAST events. Would you vote a player refusing to give you a summary based on him not giving you new information.
For Zilla and Ting's benefit, I'm going to post the definition of Summary
dictionary wrote:1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.
I was refering to the act of
asking for a summary
as a null-tell. In no way was I refering to her vote on goat, or her case. Heck, I explicitly said:
ting wrote:I really don't think goatrevolt warranted a vote.
Did you miss that or is there something to your question that I'm missing? And yes, I understand what a summary means. Just because I'd ask for a 'brief abstract of previously stated..' doesn't mean that I wouldn't bother reading all the previous posts in the game - I'd still read everything. Like I said, when I read a game, I like to read the old stuff in the context of the current situation. Is there something wrong with that?
BB wrote:I honestly feel that he is playing kind safe, but it might be his non agression in a lot of brazen personalities. (Spring, Dour, GIEFF, Goat even. The rest seem considerably more aggressive than Ting.
Of the whole bunch I would vote Macavity as he bothers me the most, but he hasn’t posted in so long I don’t really see the point. Oh well, I’ll just wait to next time. The next scummiest person might be Ting in my book, but I need a bit more discussion to really decide. (And the return of cavity with his thoughts will also help.)
Why am I next scummiest? Because I'm 'playing kind of safe'? How is that a reason? Aggresion != scum hunting. I fail to see the point of aggression besides to generate reactions, and there are other ways of doing that that work just fine.
zilla wrote:Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.
Argument from consequences. Just because your actions had 'good' consequences doesn't mean that their reasons were valid to begin with. And I'd disagree on Goat flying under the radar, he's easily among the active players.
zilla wrote:Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.
? Town and scum both have perfectly valid incentives to make sure they don't get lynched. Acting 'strongly against any and all arguments against them' is in no way indictive of scuminess. There's no reason any player should want to let an argument on them stand unless they're a jester.
zilla wrote:goat wrote:You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.
Again, welcome to the party.
I still don't think goat warranted a vote for this. There are a lot of other players who didn't bother to give you a summary. I fail to see why that's scummy at all unless you think everyone is scum for it. His reaction was perfectly valid, it's a null-tell.
zilla wrote:It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.
This, I'll agree on, as a fellow summary asker. But I still think how he reacted was a null-tell. You're both making the whole 'give-don't-give-summary' into a bigger deal than it should be.
zilla wrote:goat wrote:I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.
You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.
Whoa. Where do you get
this
from? This is just baseless.
zilla wrote:goat wrote: why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.
I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.
Again, whoa. People need to stop reading so much into the usage of particular words.
---
I'm going to ignore the rest of goat's and zilla's page 12 posts. I'm sorry guys, but I honestly think you both just took the little things way too far.
---
zilla wrote:For now, Vote: Mykonian
For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.
Seriously? You ranted a while back about how the cases so far are all over little things, and you go and vote him for being the first to say serial killer? This is the first scummy thing I've actually seen you do. I was fine with the stuff before this. And yes, I read your reply to panzer, that's not what makes me iffy. It's the fact that you're voting him for something so small 13 pages into the game.
GIEFF wrote:Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote. Not a random vote, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.
In case this was addressed to me - I was calling panzer's vote and subsequent reasoning a mistake, like he said it was. Again, I'm not seeing how it's unreasonable to consider that panzer, like myko, was in no way intending to lie. I asked you a bunch of questions a while back about this. I'm not going to push them, they're too far back for me to see any point in raising a hassle over them.
gieff wrote:But you said that "one word does not a concrete case make", implying that the word was my entire case. It was just a part of my overall case, which IS concrete.
You're taking me out of context again. My post for context:
ting wrote:The whole
case on him about the slip
hinges on the fact that he used the word 'townie.' I'm not sure yet if it means anything, but I agree with myko that it seems rather blown out of proportion. The use of one word does not a concrete case make.
Emphasis
I made it pretty clear I was talking about the whole bit with the slip, not about your whole case. And I don't think your panzer case was concrete at all. For reasons I've already said. A chunk of it is nitpicking over little things which could be read in a number of ways. I've said this before. A number of posts from the others would indicate they concur.
gieff wrote:myko wrote:You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.
You sure about that, champ?
Oh,
come on
. It's clear he thinks you're scum, and given that assumption, you'd be attempting a mislynch. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to read another slew of posts over the usage of a single word.
add-on: I do.
militant wrote:Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.
Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:
See above. I don't like this post.
gieff wrote:OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points.
Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.
That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE.
That was not what Mykonian said.
gieff wrote:I don't think the case I'm pushing is weak. Which of the following 4 points do you disagree with?
1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.
And don't give me the "early-game" thing; Panzer lied about this continuously throughout the thread, as recently as just a few pages ago.
I know this was addressed to mykonian, but I'd like to give my take.
I agree with only premise two. Premise one is incomplete. Premise three is based on premise one. Mafia isn't a logic game. It'd be no more than a maths puzzle if it was. It's about reading people. Badly playing townie, scum, people making mistakes, would all have lapses in logic. A lapse in logic in no way indicates that a person is deliberately being untruthful. Even in real life a lot of people believe things which are illogical; if they tell someone about those things, that doesn't mean that they deliberately intend to lie to that person. You can't rely solely on lapses of logic to find scum. Which is why I don't agree with your conclusion (4).
zilla wrote:Panzer lying would definately make him anti-town, and anti-town behavior is beneficial to scum, therefore, if they are lying, and there is no benefit to the town in the dishonesty, it is a valid reason to suspect them of being scum.
I still see nothing that definitively indicates panzer didn't just make a mistake, like he admitted he did. Granted, we're supposed to be suspicious of others in this game, but I can't see any reason to see the whole thing as panzer lying over him making a mistake.
zilla wrote:Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.
I've said it myself before, but I really just want to agree with it again. This is one of the more painful games I've ever played in.
gieff wrote:Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.
Please don't. There's no way either of us will prove whether panzer just made a mistake or was lying. Neither of us will be able to bring up anything that conclusively proves the other is wrong. Ditto for dourgrim bringing up the whole 'dourscum' thing actually. There won't be any logical proof for either side whether or not gieff made a mistake or was lying about him making a mistake. I don't see much point in either of these two points being brought up over and over.
dourgrim wrote: but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it.
This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?
dourgrim wrote:The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?
I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.
goat wrote:Was he lying intentionally, or was he giving inconsistent reports out of confusion/change in heart, etc.?
Thank you. That's a more succint question to gieff than what I've been asking since previous posts till now.
gieff wrote:Faking the reason for his initial mykonian vote was intentional. The later lies and inconsistencies were not intentional. I suppose it is possible he was just genuinely confused, but he was so adamant for so long over so many posts that he knew it was a joke that I find that hard to believe. We can rule a change of heart out entirely; he didn't admit it was a serious vote until it was practically proven.
And thank you for the answer I was asking for since a while back.
All of this is hypothetical. I point to the 'I suppose' and 'I find.' I think he was confused throughout and maintain that it still reads like he made a mistake.
BB wrote: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."
I disagree with the first sentence. A townie's job is to make sure the town wins. If a townie dies, the town is one step closer to losing. It's well within a townie's job to do what he can to make sure he doesn't get lynched.
gieff wrote:1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.
NO. That would mean that tunneling is perfectly okay. By this logic, if panzer had stuck to his original myko vote all the way till now (which I think we've all established was not a good vote), then you'd still see him as town. This would also indicate that people who flip flop a lot are scum. I change my mind every once in a while in games, as do others. In no way does this indicate scuminess.
I see your point perfectly fine. I'm not disputing the logic of your panzer vote. Our only disagreement is on whether or not panzer was deliberately lying, on which a large part of your vote rests on.
zilla wrote:Woe be to the person who wants to know where everyone stands, but fear them not, for they may be shunned if you merely tell them to "read the thread." You can go unaccountable as long as you wish.
False. We're all accountable since we can't edit anything we've said. Anyone who "reads the thread" can find inconsistancies in our posts. We're accountable to anything we've said already. Just because someone doesn't want to bother giving a summary doesn't mean they don't buy their opinions and cases, which unless I'm mistaken is what you're implying in:
Lord, what a sin it is to attack someone reluctant to provide their own opinions.
goat wrote: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.
You've taken his posts out of context. He didn't call panzer the victimized townie when he voted. He was suspicous of panzer, then changed his mind. The last two sentences imply that BB voted for someone he believed to be a 'victimized townie.' This is the first thing from you I don't really like. I otherwise agree that your points on BB as clarified at the end of 345 are valid though.
-----
Done till page 14. I'll finish catching up by the weekend.