Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[GIEFF]

Unvote

Vote Zilla

[Goatrevolt]

Fucking hell, I am SO TIRED OF BEING MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.

Hypersensitive reaction. Scummy by your own logic.

Now, to address Goat's posts without quoting them because apparently that breaks their context, though it seriously doesn't.

Quoting doesn't break context. Pulling out individual phrases outside of their intended context does, creating strawmen. I will give a prime example:

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.

You pulled this grossly out of context. The context is me saying that I'm not sure which of 2 possibilities BB falls into, but it is definitely one of those two possibilities. I then go on to address both possibilities. BB admitted that his mindset fit one of the two possibilities. You pulled out the first sentence "I don't fully understand" and used it to imply that I lacked understanding in how I attacked BB. That is a strawman, and a misrepresentation. Don't believe me? Here is the original quote she so eloquently butchered:

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.

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.

We go from Zilla's butchering: "You don't understand the BB situation" to the actual context: "I don't understand which of these two mindsets you had at the time, and will address either possibility." The only person who didn't understand the BB situation was you, as it obvious. You tried to defend him without any understanding of the situation, which is highly scummy all on it's own. The implication is obvious here. You knew his alignment, and defended him because you knew he was town and wanted to smear me, not because you had an understanding of the situation and thought the actual situation made him likely to be town.

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

Deflection. I never called you a tunneler, nor did I imply that tunneling is scummy in any way. I said that you threw on additional meaningless reasons to suspect me to beef up your case and make it seem more than it actually was, which is scummy. Nice deflection, though.

On the SK discussion, you missed this post. It was stupid when I didn't have a handle on the game and the situation, and now it's not so much about what was being said but who said it. I'm suspicious of those people who advocate an SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one, and that includes myk and panzer.

I didn't miss that post. In fact, I think that post is scummy as hell. It's the exact same tone you took when you realized that you screwed up and stepped out too far in your defense of BB. It's that "shit, I screwed up now I have to sneak a backtrack in here" tone. Note comments you use like "I may have changed my mind" and "perhaps it's just reading it all in one sitting" and "the argument has aged well." That's just flowery language to cover up the bullshit you used as fertilizer (this metaphor is a stretch...). You may have changed your mind? You either did or did not change your mind. You went on about how the SK discussion was stupid, but then you realized you needed more points against Mykonian to make your case on seem seem more legitimate, so you reneged on that assessment. Scummy. Furthermore, you need to show where Mykonian has "advocated a SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one." I don't recall him doing that at all.

Both you and GIEFF have misunderstood my intent on "being suspicious of nobody defending panzer." I mean you are suspicious THAT nobody is defending panzer, but then you fill that role by defending him. I've seen scum do this countless times. "Oh hay guize this wagun luks to EZ, lol! Thay must not B scum !" Turns out both the person being pushed and the person who said the wagon looked too easy were scum.

Understood. Why didn't you address this then, when I argued against it? You left this to hang for many posts. Rather than say "you're misunderstanding my point" and clarifying it, you pulled the "fire and brimstone" argument.

As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been. Perhaps if you take the integral of my suspicion over time, you might say I'm not voting for the person with the most area under their curve, but I've always voted for the top suspect on my list. Mykonian is still my second suspect. Panzer and Birthday are third but in different facets; Panzer is more "group suspicious" and Birthday is more "single suspicious."

This is crap. For reference, here is the post, post 387. As is obvious by reading that post, this occurs AFTER Birthday admits his scumminess and votes you. Since that point on, Birthday has not changed his stance at all. This is important. You list Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and me at 20%. A few days later, you list Birthday at 75% when forced to give a stance on him.

Here's why this is scummy. If Birthday did not change his stance at all, it stands to reason that your stance on him likewise did not alter much (Note: you agree later in this post). You never questioned him, addressed him or made any post suggesting a change in heart regarding him. You listed him at 75%, and it stands to reason he was similarly 75% at the time you made the post I linked above (or at least close). So, that means that Birthday is at or around 75%, Mykonian is 50%, Panzer is 40%, and I am 20%

at the time of that post

. From reading your posts, it's clear Birthday was your top suspect based on the percentages, and you did not vote him or address him. I will also note that I was at 20%, a percentage more townie than the average player (likely between 25%-33%). Your suspicion of me rose from 20% to over 75% and much of that suspicion was generated or based on me providing a link describing my opinion rather than directly typing it out. Let's go ahead and look at your original response to the post I linked to:

Okay, now I can at least see a bit of what you are thinking. I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're scum right now either.

unvote: goatrevolt

So, by linking to the very post you unvoted me over, your suspicion of me began to rise enough to go from 20% to over 75%? Haha, no.

On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.

Deflection, again. I said that you were suspicious because of the hypocrisy. You have defended yourself exactly the same way I have, by "overreacting." Note my very first line of this post. You call me scummy for being hypersensitive and aggressive in my defense. You are guilty of the exact same thing. I called you out on the hypocrisy, and here we see you utilize deflection to try to avoid that point.

On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material.

My arguments on Panzer were still valid. Nothing had changed between that post and my current opinion. In fact, the text I provided you was almost a carbon copy of what I said in that earlier post, yet you did not bat an eye. So why didn't you accept me linking to that almost exact same explanation as valid? There is no logical reasoning here, you are arguing a completely nonsensical point. To prove my point, I will quote both sections, and you tell me where the difference is:

In essence, I think Panzer has played in a scummy fashion. The logic adds up to him being scum: the inconsistencies, the inability to explain his behavior, etc.. My gut is saying no, though, which is part of the reason I have hesitated on the wagon. Despite his failings in explaining himself throughout the thread, I've felt some of his plays have seemed genuine. The logic suggests he is scum, but I hesitate on the gut aspect, and in addition I wasn't comfortable ending the day with a lot of open ends.

Compare that to:

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel).

Those are almost identical. You repeatedly stated I could not link to post 295 because it was not a current opinion. I gave my "current opinion" finally, and it was pretty much exactly the same as what I said in 295. When I gave that "new" opinion your response was "Finally, Goat answers the question." To me, this demonstrates how obvious it was that you didn't even bother to read 295 when I linked to it. You misreped me by arguing against 240, not 295 once, and then when I gave the same description later, you accepted it. I think if you had actually read 295, you would have noticed the glaring similarities and commented on it. You didn't do this. It stands to reason you were just throwing suspicion on me for no good reason. Scummy.

Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds. Let us begin:

namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then

I also gave a stance in that post on Panzer. The same stance that I "wrote out for you" later on. Furthermore, my vote had switched from MacavityLock to Beyond_Birthday. That does not affect my opinion on Panzer.

Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post

Thank you so much for saying this. You just proved my earlier point. You know, the point where I say your opinion didn't change on Birthday, and you put him at 75%, so you should have been voting him, or at least attacking him in some fashion? You just proved me correct right here. Good game, scum.

I will state this again and make it clear. Zilla says nothing of note changed regarding Birthday. She listed Birthday at 75%. Since nothing of note changed, that means Birthday was also at 75% at the time she posted "Mykonian 50%, Panzer 40%, Goat 20%." She wasn't voting for her top scum suspect. She wasn't even mentioning him at all. Scum caught.

and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.

Your vote changed from Mykonian to me. And the situation at large had remained mostly the same is just more proof to my above point. Thanks for making my case easier.

On "hasty dismissal," again, your "case" was three one-off lines. I'll admit I'd hardly read anything at that point, but whenever somebody switches their vote from somebody who hadn't defended themselves for somebody else who hadn't posted in a while and their listed reasons are "lack of scumhunting, suspicious disengage from Panzer, and wishy-washy stances," of course I'm going to be critical. That is a weak case, no matter what. There's no way that those reasons are enough to lynch anybody, and there seemed to be no outstanding catalyst for a changed vote other than the MacavityLock wagon was stuck in a rut.

Critical, sure. However, if you are critical of a case, yet you don't understand the details behind it, what do you do? Do you dismiss the case as being weak without understanding it at all? Shenanigans. You seek to understand it.

You saying it's a weak case doesn't make it a weak case. Me using three one-liners doesn't mean my case is weak, and you know it. You called it out as a weak case likely because you knew Birthday was town, and wanted to smear me.

Also, you say you wanted to "test reactions," which is a common scum justification for just about anything they do to try to get a wagon moving, especially if what they did was scummy to begin with. Note; this has been done multiple times in this game, by many people.

Strawman. Your argument is that it's scummy for me to give three 1-line reasons for voting someone. Your original vote on me was a single 1-line reason. Hypocrisy. My vote on BB was not scummy. I gave my reasons, I did not fill in the blanks. There is a reason I did that. It's because I gave a chance for BB to fill in the blanks himself, which gives us a great indication of his mindset. I gave the chance for other townies to fill in the blanks, which gives an indication of their mindset. You certainly gave us a good reaction here. You dismissed the case without knowing what comprised it.

On "inability to read posts," the same could be said of you, except that you're actively contorting mine to fit your wild arguments. You argue that I pull quotes out of context; what would be more clear "in context"? There's nothing missing from them that would be further explained by not addressing the points as they come up. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem because so much of those "out of context" things are because I try to point out exactly where your inaccuracy causes your entire case to fall apart. If you were talking about plants and how they are horrible because they eat kittens, and you make a detailed post about how plants eat kittens and what happens to the kitten populations, I'm going to stop you as soon as you say plants eat kittens. There's nothing about that statement that needs to be "in context" to be fully understood, and it is wrong.

I gave an example of this above. The "I don't fully understand" point, where you spin it around to mean that I don't have a grasp on the situation, when my actual and obvious meaning was that I don't know which of two possibilities is correct, so I addressed both.

Using your plants with kittens example here is what I mean: I would say something like the following. "If plants could eat kittens, then the kitten population would be lower." You then say "Wow, Goat thinks plants can eat kittens. He must have knowledge of a kitten eating plant and so he's scum." Think I'm lying? Let's look at a real example:

In Post 480 I discuss the concept of lynching for information. I say that lynching for information as a concept suggests that it is acceptable to lynch a town player because of the information generated. I then go on to ask, "what do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town." I am entirely addressing the concept of lynching for information. I want to know why lynching for information is a good idea, and I'm using the example scenario of Panzer being town.

You make a response in Post 482. In your response, you say that I am awfully adamant that Panzer is town. That is a misrepresentation and a strawman argument. You took my

example scenario

, ripped it out of context to suggest it was my actual opinion, and then argued against that opinion you ripped out. That is the definition of a strawman.

Also, "that's the definition of strawman"? Unlike you, I answer every single part of those posts. I've only cut standalone statements that are not part of any argument. When you engage in your side of a quote war against me, you constantly incorrectly paraphrase me to destroy that actual intent of the argument.

I've already shown this to not be true, based on my two above examples ("I don't fully understand", Panzer is town). You cut parts out of my posts and argue against them, creating a strawman and smearing me. That is scummy. Also, nice unsupported deflection there at the end. We're discussing your play here, not mine. So much of your defense in this post is an attempt to deflect back to me. And naturally so, because you don't have a defense for your scummy actions.

On your example: "lynching for information." You commit that exact fallacy. I debated at length about the logic of lynching for information, and I debated why it is logical if panzer is town. You then CONSTRUCT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT by ignoring that, and instead attacking from the angle that panzer will be a mislynch while birthday will not

hahahaha. Funny, funny. I've gone through your posts and this is what I've found on the topic:

Guys, asking for what specific information a lynch will give beforehand is eating unripened fruit.

I think town-panzer might actually give us more information than scum-birthday. While, in retrospect, it's always better to lynch scum, we don't know their alignments

I personally think a town panzer doesn't clear anyone

Town Panzer would help us analyze whether his defenders were defending him because they thought he was town or because they knew he was town, rather than leaving it open to speculation on if his defenders are trying to defend a buddy. Revealing the specifics of who falls into which category is harmful and pointless at this point, and potentially destroys sources of information.

Debated at length? Your only reason given was my last quote there: "Town Panzer would help us..." That is a marginal and weak reason. That information can be determined right now, without Panzer actually being lynched. Basically, what you're saying is "who is defending Panzer without just cause?" We don't need a dead Panzer to analyze that.

I never said Panzer will be a mislynch and Birthday will not be. That is a direct lie based on your own strawmanning of my posts. I've shown already where you have done this. Point out exactly where I say Panzer is a mislynch, and Birthday is guaranteed scum, and I will show you the obvious strawman.

On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

Holy deflection and misrepresentation batman! I never said or implied that you were scummy for suspecting me. I said you were scummy because according to the Zilla percentage based analysis of who is scum, I was lower on the Zilla-scale than Birthday, yet you were not voting or attacking him whatsoever. Instead you were on me. This is a point I proved earlier in this post, using the evidence you so graciously gave me in your post. I said that I doubted you could back up your stance from a town standpoint, because I don't know how townie can back up ignoring their top suspect to pursue someone else.

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

Unvote, Vote Zilla

I encourage everyone to read this post carefully. Examine the links I provided. Take the time to understand the points I am making. Go back and verify for yourself. I've finally been able to nail Zilla on the contradictions, strawmen, hypocrisy, and deflection that she has been using this game (admittedly, others have been here first). It has made this game a living hell trying to argue with her, and I wrongly brushed it off as playstyle differences or her simply being unable to comprehend my posts. At this point, it has become quite clear that this is a result of her being scum. She is a fully capable player, and has no problem understanding posts.

[springlullaby]

Gonna play catch up.

[GIEFF]

Your case consisted out of the lying of panzer, and a few minor points (I forgot them, sorry), in the end, only the lying remained. The small points proved to be close to nothing.

With reasons, I think about things that logically make you vote. About motivation, I think what you intend to do with your vote.

In that case, I misunderstood you when you said "motivation." I am not talking about what you are calling motivation.


This is something like the third time you have tried to construe my case as "LAL." It is not. It is "LAPWLATRFV."

(lynch all players who lie about their reasons for voting)


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

No need to claim now, B_B.

mod, can we get a vote count?

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

There's no need to play catch-up, springlullaby; I will post a summary for you:


Zilla is scum.



There, you don't even have to read the thread now. You're welcome.

[Goatrevolt]

Let me know if I should answer Zilla's post 537 and 538. I can answer her accusations easy enough, but I don't want to flood the thread with unnecessarily long posts.

I do have to answer this one part of post 539:

First off, Goat and Myk's refusal is way more "shut-out, go away" style than any of the others. They don't even want to talk to me.

This could be the funniest thing I have read in the thread. This is even funnier than Zilla simulposting her defense of BB with his acknowledgment of being scummy, and then having to fall back on an "oh shit" post. You know that "oh shit I overextended defending BB so I'll go ahead and toss suspicion on Goat for

the reasons I unvoted him!

" post.

My style is "shut-out, go away"? As evidenced by the post wars I've engaged with you? Hilarious.

Goatrevolts's super long post: I find the general point agrees with the thoughts I have had on Zilla since she started defending me (or about that time). I find it interesting that he believe that if Zilla is scum that I still could be. Personally, this seems flawed as a thought process, but I'm not really sure.

The reason I think you could still be scum is because she ignored you and was trying to deflect away from your wagon by pushing me (the driving force behind your wagon) as scum. She maintained that you were scum, but was unwilling to join your wagon and was trying to undermine it with her pressure on me. Her swap to me as scum was built from poor reasons (The link vs. text argument, strawman of my lynching for info example) and the resulting back and forth of her push on me pushed your case into the background.

I think you both being scum together is plausible, for those reasons. I think it is less likely, though, than her as scum and you as town. I think her dismissal of my case on you without knowing what it was would suggest you being town. It's ballsy scum play to dismiss a case on your scumbuddy without even bothering to examine the reasons behind it.

You are not interested in understanding what I'm saying, you're interested in finding a small part of my overall argument you can attack, saying "misrepresentation" and then moving on as if my entire argument is invalidated and you don't need to respond to it. This is deflection, and it is scummy; I KNOW you understood my point.

Aye. This is the strawman/deflection tactic she continues to employ.

Okay, seriously, stop being a hypocrite. I already answered this, but now you're acting like I didn't, because you "invalidated" my answer to this by saying I was just "nitpicking."

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense. The strangest thing of all is that this is counter to the earlier dynamic between Goat, Panzer, and GIEFF. GIEFF pushes panzer, Goat defends panzer, and now GIEFF defends goat who had been defending panzer. GIEFF is also defending Goat MUCH MORE than Goat's soft-spoken defense of panzer.

Speaking of deflection. You ignore GIEFF's valid point. You instead employ deflection. You deflect to attacking him as a scum buddy of me, rather than address the point he is making. You got caught, so you shift attention.

But I did realize something; Goat really isn't going anywhere, and we'll at least have more information on him post-day 1. Birthday continues to look scummy as the game progresses. Panzer's off lurking, which is pretty terrible in these conditions, and I'd definately like to hear more from him before the day ends.

Unvote: Goatrevolte

---

IGMEOY

Vote: Beyond Birthday

Nice shift. This is so "transparently scummy," to borrow a term. Unable to defend your stance, you place a 6th vote on Birthday. You deflect from the attention on you to put attention on Birthday. You want us to avoid pressuring you so you try to change the topic and direct discussion to Birthday. Noteworthy is the accusation of Panzer. You are throwing him in for no reason whatsoever to shift attention again.

Also, I love your drastic stance shift. I'm not going anywhere so you're fine with leaving me till tomorrow? How does that compare with:

Second, you can check my meta, but I am almost always one of the first people on anyone's case. You shouldn't keep your vote off someone just because they aren't likely to be lynched. In fact, if anything, it only makes them a better target, since mafia are harder to lynch than town.

Here you respond to GIEFF saying your vote on me isn't accomplishing anything because I'm unlikely to get lynched. You respond by pushing for my lynch and give the reason that since I'm harder to get lynched I'm more likely to be scum.

Again, either you're defending him as fellow scum or he's sold you on why I voted for him in the first place.

You say I'm scum here.

I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.

You say I'm your top suspect here.

"Persuit of me as scum depsite being less likely to be scum if BB is scum." Yes, I'll agree with that, but now you're arguing the opposite of what you argued when it was Panzer and mykonian instead of you and BB. If I had to give it up between you two being scum, I'd pick you right now.

You say if you had to pick between me and BB, you'd pick me as scum.

As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been.

You're voting for BB, but you just said I'm your top suspect. So what you're saying is you're fine letting your top suspect skate off until tomorrow, and instead you place the 6th vote on someone who's chance of being scum decreases if me, your top suspect, is scum? Funny how that works.

I'm not voting BB because he's not my TOP suspect, which is Goat, for reasons I have stated, and will state again

This quote speaks for itself.

Need I go on? Zilla is voting for BB as an act of desperation, because she is caught scum and is trying to deflect or force down a quick lynch to save her hide. These quotes I just quoted were all taken directly from her posts within 12 hours of her change to voting BB over me. I am her top suspect, as she has repeatedly asserted. She switches to voting for BB, who is less likely to be scum if I am scum, based on her own logic. And her reasoning is that I will still be around tomorrow.

There is no way a townie thinks like this. She thinks I am scum, but because I will still be around tomorrow, she switches to voting for someone who is

less likely to be scum if I am scum

. No way.

Goat-Zilla. Goat seems very protown to me, and Zilla seems to see all the small things. Zilla's tactic would be good, assuming perfect play. I don't know how perfect Goat is.

I am perfection incarnate.

On a more serious note, you mention "Zilla sees all the small things." What this really means is that she makes mountains out of molehills. She takes small things, rips them out of the context they go with, amplifies the newly constructed strawman as something scummy, and then attacks it.

Responding to prod. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what I can contribute here. I am doing my best to keep up with the thread, but I'm not seeing anything that grabs my attention. I think we're being crippled by having the entire game revolve around the same 3 or 4 arguments that only involve less than half of the town. Given the absence of any truly solid information, we're going to have to realize that these arguments are impossible to definitively wrap up in a way that leaves us a with a generally accepted conclusion. Different players will continue to have their own ideas, and at some point folks will need to settle for simply knowing that they've made their points as clearly as possible so that everybody else can weigh them fairly. We're spinning our wheels.

Nice non-committal post here amidst polarizing discussion. Did you even read the page you posted this on? People are changing their minds, votes are swapping around and there is plenty of juicy discussion here. I'm highly suspect of this recycled "we aren't getting anywhere" post during a very influential part of the game.

Also, I can claim, but if people think this lead is better, I suggest we follow it.

I'd guess this is obvious by now, but there is no need for you to claim right now.

[mykonian]

I've finally been able to nail Zilla on the contradictions, strawmen, hypocrisy, and deflection that she has been using this game (admittedly, others have been here first). It has made this game a living hell trying to argue with her, and I wrongly brushed it off as playstyle differences or her simply being unable to comprehend my posts.

Guess it had to end this way: Zilla tunnels on you, tries to find something in all your posts (and if you look for something, you can always find it in this game), and on a certain moment, you decide that this all can't be true, and that she must be scum.

If you look at how I played while Zilla had me as target, you can see I was not that interested. Keep in mind that her arguments are not strong. However, that doesn't mean that Zilla can't be useful to town: Just look at the reactions of people to her. As I already stated, I don't think she has brought anything up that makes me think you are scum, goat, and this reaction makes you likely town, it looks sincere.

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

[mykonian]

Goat-Zilla. Goat seems very protown to me, and Zilla seems to see all the small things. Zilla's tactic would be good, assuming perfect play. I don't know how perfect Goat is.

I am perfection incarnate.

On a more serious note, you mention "Zilla sees all the small things." What this really means is that she makes mountains out of molehills. She takes small things, rips them out of the context they go with, amplifies the newly constructed strawman as something scummy, and then attacks it.

We know: would scum be so obvious? If I'm scum, I would never use something that obvious, people are quite sensitive, and when their ideas are used wrong, they find out soon. Most "strawmen" I have seen were wrong reading, making it a little too strong, and then the person whose words were used reacts aggressively. I'm a bit scared of these kinds of arguments.

[Goatrevolt]

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

I'll answer this, but I want to first turn this around and ask you a question: What constitutes a good case? You don't consider lying a good case. You don't consider contradictions a good case, or strawmen, or deflection. How do you catch scum? What makes up a good case?

Then I will ask you to look at post 554. Can you read that post and say that you think Zilla is acting like a townie? She placed the 6th vote on Birthday after spending post after post arguing about how she thought I was more likely to be scum than Birthday and that's why she was voting me and not him. She got mad at GIEFF, because he told her I wasn't going to get lynched today. The reason she got mad was because she told him that he was trying to direct her vote off of me, who she thought was scum. She argued how he was a scum buddy to me. Then, abruptly, and for no real reason, she switched to voting Beyond Birthday, and trying to direct attention to Panzer rather than answer the question GIEFF asked her. Nothing changed. There was no new information to change her mind. After arguing over and over again how I was scum, and after starting to suggest who scum buddies to me would be, she changed her vote to a player who had 5 votes on him already. This player is also someone based on her logic that would be LESS likely to be scum if I was scum, her current top target. That does not make sense. There is no townie justification for that action. Therefore, she is scum. It's as simple as that.

Her scum justification is obvious. GIEFF asked her a question she could not answer. She was getting pressured with questions she had no answer to. Rather than attempt and fail to answer those questions, she tried to deflect. She attempted to change the discussion to other people. Do you see any real logical reason for why she brought Panzer up when she voted for BB? If she was concerned about Panzer "lurking" she would have brought it up beforehand. The reason she brought it up there is because she wanted to deflect, and she tried to do so by changing the focus of the discussion to Birthday and Panzer.

To answer your question, I will say "it depends." The type of contradictions/misrepresentations/deflections/strawmen is what is important. I won't say any of those are guaranteed indicators of scum on their own, however, they do indicate scum based on the circumstances.

The contradiction aspect of Zilla is that she was not voting for who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was not even

attacking

who she thought was most likely to be scum. She was attacking me, and I was the one attacking Birthday, who was most likely to be scum at the time. The time period I speak of is Post 387. In that post, she lists me as 20% likely to be scum. You are at 50%, Panzer is at 40%. Birthday is at 75%. Later on in the thread, Zilla says that Birthday is at 75%, and she also says that her opinion on Birthday had not changed at all during the period between Post 387 and that post. What that means is Birthday was at 75%, you at 50%, Panzer 40%, me 20%. Her vote was on you, and then it swapped to me. She did not vote or attack Birthday, who was her top suspect. That is contradictory and scummy.

Why would town not be voting for their top suspect? The only reason I can think of is to avoid a quicklynch. However, Birthday was at either 1 or 2 votes at the time. There is no townie reason why her vote wasn't on BB. Consider the scum benefit: She wasn't voting Birthday because she wanted to direct attention to people who she wanted lynched or gone for her own scum-reasons. She did not want Birthday to get lynched. The reason is that he was arguing if he got lynched and was town, then Zilla is scum. Zilla doesn't want him dead, because it makes her more likely to be scum. So she avoided him, despite him being her top suspect.

Misrepresentations/Strawmen: On their own, these are not necessarily indications someone is scum. People can misrepresent posts on accident all the time. For example, I feel you have misrepresented GIEFF numerous times throughout this game, but I don't think you're scum. In the case of Zilla, though, it is obvious she is capable of understanding the situations she misrepresents. She misrepresented me by saying I knew Panzer was town. She pulled that out of a post where I gave an example situation. My example was "if Panzer is town, what do we learn?" She ripped that out of context and came to the conclusion that I knew Panzer was town. She is capable of understanding what I meant. She simply chose not to and instead tried to pin me as being scum based on this purposeful misrepresentation. This is the same type of argument you are using against GIEFF.

Deflection: Here is the reason this is scummy. Let's say I attack Zilla for X. She knows she does not have a valid explanation for X, so instead of defending against it, she attacks me instead. What this accomplishes is that it puts me on the defensive. I'm forced to defend myself, and it's possible that X, the original accusation gets ignored in the meantime. It's a scum tactic for avoiding suspicious things they've done but cannot explain. Zilla uses this tactic against GIEFF and myself many times in her recent posts. Read through them and see how instead of answering a point, how she will sometimes turn it around and attack the accuser instead. GIEFF nails her on a point. What does she do? She says she's already answered that point (where?), and then deflects to Birthday and Panzer. She does not have a valid answer to the question GIEFF presented to her, so her she tried to deflect.

We know: would scum be so obvious? If I'm scum, I would never use something that obvious, people are quite sensitive, and when their ideas are used wrong, they find out soon. Most "strawmen" I have seen were wrong reading, making it a little too strong, and then the person whose words were used reacts aggressively. I'm a bit scared of these kinds of arguments.

How obvious is this really? Look at how many times various points have gotten lost in the long quote-wars between her and myself. Her strawmen arguments have not been obvious, or else others would have been attacking them as well.

I'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

[mykonian]

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

I'll answer this, but I want to first turn this around and ask you a question: What constitutes a good case? You don't consider lying a good case. You don't consider contradictions a good case, or strawmen, or deflection. How do you catch scum? What makes up a good case?

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

I meant the fact that you knew. You can always see that your feelings are posted the wrong way. That's why I would never use it if I am scum, it always comes out and someone is going to make a big show out of it, but with the problem that I'm also in it. To you it is obvious that something is going wrong.

[GIEFF]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

[mykonian]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

But on the other hand, Panzers actions cannot be explained, and I don't like that. Means something is wrong there.

I'm sorry, could you tell me what "sitting on the fence" means?

[Goatrevolt]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I just gave you scum motivations for her actions, and likewise showed the lack of possible town motivations. Thoughts on those?

I'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

I meant the fact that you knew. You can always see that your feelings are posted the wrong way. That's why I would never use it if I am scum, it always comes out and someone is going to make a big show out of it, but with the problem that I'm also in it. To you it is obvious that something is going wrong.

You'd be surprised at how often this goes unchecked. As Zilla made an effort to note (in order to paint me as scummy), my style of "aggressively" defending myself against every point brought up against me is not the typical way people play. I do it because it's effective. I don't want to count my chickens before they are hatched, but as an aside: Zilla scoffed at my mention that I have caught scum based on how they have attacked me. She used this as a point against me when calling my scumhunting techniques poor. If Zilla is scum, I wish to note the irony.

It's also entirely likely Zilla was not aware how in over her head she was. Note how I had to piece together information from a variety of posts over a long period of time to point out her scumminess. None of this was obvious. None of this was big slips that would nail her on their own. Your argument here is basically "scum wouldn't act like scum because they would get caught." No, scum act like scum because they are scum. Can you give a specific example of something Zilla wouldn't do as scum because it was too obvious? You might argue that Zilla wouldn't say Birthday is her top suspect but not vote for him. I would shoot down that argument by saying that Zilla only implied Birthday was her top suspect pages and pages after the fact, after having me repeatedly question her on it, and that I had to piece together how that was inconsistent and scummy, using three separate Zilla posts. This wasn't an immediately obvious failure. That was a mistake that propagated itself over time and as a result of her being scum and being unable to keep her story straight. She wasn't voting Birthday because of scum motivations to vote for other people. That lie didn't catch up to her for another 4+ pages, when she made a mistake later.

To summarize. Give me a specific example of a single post or statement Zilla made that was blatantly scummy and something scum wouldn't do because it would cause them to get caught? There isn't one. None of Zilla's posts are scummy in isolation. You're trying to say Zilla wouldn't do obviously scummy things. I'm saying nothing she did was obviously scummy. Everything is pieced together over time based on the increasing realization that her actions cannot make sense from a town perspective.

[militant]

At this point I'm seriously considering a "lynch all lurkers" strategy in this game. There are WAY too many people who aren't contributing to this game, instead watching from the sidelines while big conversations go on and attract all the attention. From this point forward, every time someone gets prodded on a Tuesday through Friday (because I don't expect anyone to post much on weekends), I'm giving them a . Every time I see a "oops, sorry I'm not being helpful" or "sorry, I'm here, I'll contribute some other time" post like the ones above, they get a . When someone compiles enough 's, I'm going to vote for them. A player may cancel a with a when they contribute to the game at large with three posts without a . It may sound simplistic, but I'm really getting irritated with this crap, and this way everyone can see exactly how mad I'm getting.

Post coming later tonight.

Hypocritical much? I admit I have not been contributing as much as I should and will alter that from this day forth. I have a week of from school due to half time. I totally agree with the accusation that I'm sitting by and allowing for the big discussions to go on so I am going to get into a big discussion. My lurkiness disappears when I have something or someone to sink my teeth into so here goes...

Goat Revolt, mykonian, Beyond_Birthday, Panzer, subgenius, militant, and myself have all said we don't like you asking for summaries before reading the thread.

Here is your vote history:

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297
FOS: Goatrevolt Post 421
unvote: Mykonian Vote: Goatrevolt Post 486

Just to confirm and eradicate any doubts about my stance I do think asking for a summary is a little bit scummy but the hypersensitive reaction that followed was what made me and is making me follow Zilla's actions closely.

Amid the discussion I have been reading a theory from GIEFF that Zilla is scum but has big connections with BB. I agree with this thery as stated in post 308.

I am going to

Vote Zilla

[Goatrevolt]

Unofficial vote count has Zilla at 4 votes: Birthday, GIEFF, Goat, Militant

I had a post typed up, but I copy pasted it to a notepad file and accidentally copy pasted over that notepad file. Fun fun...here is the gist of the post:

If Zilla is scum, then I feel these players go up in scumminess:

Dourgrim:
Qwints:
Subgenius:

The rest of the game either does not shift in scumminess, or shifts more towards town.

I can further elaborate before the end of the day if deemed necessary (though I won't be elaborating on the townie/neutral shifts. I don't see how that would be pro-town).

[Goatrevolt]

In retrospect, I can see panzer as a scum buddy as well.

[mykonian]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I just gave you scum motivations for her actions, and likewise showed the lack of possible town motivations. Thoughts on those?

I know I can't argue with this, but I have seen this too often: two townies that go after each other, pointing out that the other doesn't understand them the right way. I believe you think you have found that it can't be true, but I also believe she thought she had found something. She points out a lot of small things, and so do you, and suddenly we have 4 votes on Zilla.

To summarize. Give me a specific example of a single post or statement Zilla made that was blatantly scummy and something scum wouldn't do because it would cause them to get caught? There isn't one. None of Zilla's posts are scummy in isolation. You're trying to say Zilla wouldn't do obviously scummy things. I'm saying nothing she did was obviously scummy. Everything is pieced together over time based on the increasing realization that her actions cannot make sense from a town perspective.

I'm using a fallacy, I see now. "Too scummy", and I think it can't be. I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong argument here. But "everything pieced together" makes me cautious. I'm sure people would "find" a lot of small mistakes if they took my posts apart (and Zilla kind of did that), but would that make me scum?

and now this: Goat, protown starts the action on Zilla, you made the case, and now this. Sorry if I sound defensive again, but I can't believe that there is no scum on that wagon.

[GIEFF]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

But on the other hand, Panzers actions cannot be explained, and I don't like that. Means something is wrong there.

I'm sorry, could you tell me what "sitting on the fence" means?

It means you don't commit to telling us how you feel about players or cases, other than a select few (i.e. me vs. Panzer). It's easier to avoid being caught in contradictions or inconsistencies that way.

You gave a great example in that very post. You leave the door open for both sides, refusing to commit. "But on the other hand..."

[mykonian]

I DON'T KNOW!

There are things wrong, I feel. Things go unnatural, but I can't put my finger on what it is. The BB wagon, the easy target. The fast shift to Zilla based on the fact that people grow annoyed with her. You going hard for a weird play of Panzer.

I don't see a pattern in it. I can't see who are making mistakes and who are scum.

I'm sorry, but till a deadline, or till there is a solid case, I'm not so certain about things as you seem to be GIEFF. I'm not a person to make the easy choices.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count VIII

Zilla

(4): Beyond_Birthday, GIEFF, Goatrevolt, militant

Beyond_Birthday

(3): Panzerjager, qwints, Zilla

Panzerjager

(3): ting=), subgenius, Dourgrim

Not Voting:

springlullaby, mykonian

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

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

[ting =)]

Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

Or maybe ting=) will? What did you mean by "get out of this?"

I don't like what you're trying to imply in the first sentence. I still don't like how you try to read slips into everything like the second sentence.

anti-town=/=scummy

Yeah, that's why I said:

It's

unhelpful.

If you're town you're not helping at all with not defending yourself. You're not giving us any reason to think you're town, there's no reason we shouldn't assume otherwise.

Not to answer for people, but ting=) says he does it. He does also say he doesn't see the reaction of not wanting to give one as scummy though, but just because nobody in this town seems to get the logic behind it doesn't make it invalid. This isn't the only mafia game ever played. I know it works from other games.

This is true. And yes, it's invalid. You're applying 'not wanting to give a summary is scummy' as an absolute scumtell, but a tell is only relevant if scum are statistically more likely to do it. They're not. I point to the fact that, as has been pointed out, the majority of the players here haven't, and that in any other game you pick, I'm pretty sure it'd be the same.

GIEFF is definately tied to Goat, and this is unbelievable textbook chainsaw defense.

This is confirmation bias. Just because he, like goat, also disagrees with you does not make it a chainsaw defense.

[subgenius quote here]Nice non-committal post here amidst polarizing discussion. Did you even read the page you posted this on? People are changing their minds, votes are swapping around and there is plenty of juicy discussion here. I'm highly suspect of this recycled "we aren't getting anywhere" post during a very influential part of the game.

Yes. I had something typed out already, but this puts my thoughts better.

--

I don't like myko's newest posts. No time for actual reread now, I'll do it later.

[mykonian]

I don't like myko's newest posts. No time for actual reread now, I'll do it later.

I would love to be a day cop too.

[ting =)]

I'm not sure what that means really. Could you clarify?

[mykonian]

That I don't like my posts too, that they probably don't help, but that it is what I think, what I feel.

I feel I'm just guessing around, and not finding scum, while I feel that something is wrong. But I can't determine what is imperfect play, and what is scummy. How can you try to explain Zilla-Goat, GIEFF-Panzer, the amount of interest for BB, without imperfect play?

[ting =)]

I don't think you'll ever really know with certainty that you're right in a mafia game. Mafia would be a pretty boring game if there was a way to tell for sure if someone is scum.

[mykonian]

I don't think you'll ever really know with certainty that you're right in a mafia game. Mafia would be a pretty boring game if there was a way to tell for sure if someone is scum.

I know, that is not the problem, but there is nothing to go from now. There is no basic information that can function as a start for your thoughts. Till you have an investigation, a claim, a lynch, a kill: nothing is known, every thought is based on assumption where you have no way of knowing how good these assumptions are.

I could see a way for Zilla to be scum, but I can also see her as town. What makes the one more likely then the other?

I can see GIEFF scum, and I think he is on top of my list, but this would imply that Panzer is town, and when you try to test that with his posts, GIEFF-scum is not that likely anymore. And the fun is, this one is not solvable, I think.