Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Zilla]

I haven't read much of anything but the vote count today, but I do have to laugh that I'm suddenly being voted for because I finally give in and vote for Birthday. God damn, what the hell do you want me to do? You crucify me for attacking goat, and now you vote me for switching to Birthday!

Now, time to read the posts to get current...-

[GIEFF]

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.

I don't think it was a slip, I just don't know what he meant.

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?

Logic, persuasion, analyis.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, I already know you have no problem with choosing. You are so confident. What is the trick?

[GIEFF]

I have tried to be as logical as possible explaining why scum and town go through very different processes when explaining their reasoning for votes. This goes to the very nature of the way the game is set up; i.e. the scum have information the town do not, and they have to pretend they do not have this information.

That is how you know. If someone's behavior makes it look like they have more knowledge than they should. This can be in the form of slips (which I think are a lot more important than you do, ting; they can reveal the mindset of the poster. My dourscum slip revealed I was thinking dourgrim was scum at the time I was writing it.), or it can be revealed by inducing that people are giving reasons for voting that they do not really believe in, or it can be revealed by having a bias toward innocence of another (as Zilla showed toward B_B), or for other reasons.

There is no being sure, and if I presented cases as "well, you might be scum because of this, but of course I'm not sure, so on the other hand you might not be, so I don't know" then we'd never get anywhere.


I can see a scum motivation behind your wishy-washiness (to use your own words): ensuring you don't get caught out in any inconsistencies. After all, if you're faking reasons for a vote, it's much easier to just keep track of your opinions on one or two people or cases than on a whole slew of them, as Zilla has learned.


I would like to see you post a list of your thoughts on every other player in the game. You don't have to be sure, juts tell us what you think.

[mykonian]

ok, I can do that, I think.

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.
Zilla Replacing dejkha: annoying nitpicking and the next easy target.
Dourgrim: flying under the radar to me. Should have looked at him closer
GIEFF: my best bet now. He exited his case against panzer with an unfalsifiable argument, and was on both BB and Zilla's wagon in time.
Goatrevolt: protown
qwints Replacing MacavityLock: plain lurking, no read because of that.
militant: no idea where he stands, was late on BB.
Panzerjager: I gamble now he had just a shaky start, and that it will never be explained. Although he has not been so prominent lately.
springlullaby: I always think spring scum. Seems to take weird stances on purpose, and on the other hand is easily active lurking.
subgenius: LURKER! This was the only one that I needed to look at the posts he made to know what he did. You should do it too...
ting =): protown. I usually agree with his posts.

vote GIEFF

Based on assumptions, the things I have been talking about and hoping Panzer really made a mistake.

Now, you know where I stand, I hope.

[Zilla]

Okay, it's fine now, I'm pretty sure the scum team is already on me, so I can relax some. Fastwagon is telling.

The lack of panzer input is getting disconcerting, but I have to say, in his absence, I think at least two members of the scum team have asserted themselves. This all depends on who is town that's being pushed though.

First off, there's the mistake that I put Birthday at L-1. Counting the votes, it was L-2. I don't know why GIEFF said he had put birhtday at L-2 before.

Second, there's the whole nature of their disengage plus goat telling Birthday not to claim. I thought Birthday was a top suspect for goat? Why would he switch so superfluously and tell Birthday not to claim?

The whole way this scene is playing out, and especially GIEFF switching votes at Birthday gets another, seems way too opportunistic to me. I suspect at least 2, if not all 3, out of Birthday, Goat, and GIEFF to be scum.

It makes the most sense if they are all scum, but I've never seen scum move entirely in a block like that. There's probably someone else not taking part to hedge their bets.

I'm entirely disheartened by those who claim Goat looks pro-town and that I'm nitpicking when I clearly explain all his misconceptions/misrepresentations, he continues to make them, and suddenly I'M the one who's ignoring his posts, because I'm not addressing his warped reality versions of my responses. I could get into yet another quote war, but then I'd be "nitpicking" and honestly I'd have to correct him on the same mistakes he's made so many times before.

It's possible that he's just a stubborn, hypocritical townie that can't see he's doing everything he's accusing me of. Aside from him laying into me in perhaps the scummiest way possible (constructing a false reality), his scumminess is basically that he hates being accountable and he has tenuous connections to Panzer and Mykonian. Those connections have eroded, though, in the face of the much stronger connections to GIEFF and Birthday.

GIEFF has a lot of the same style problems as goat, either he buys Goat's faulty universe (either as town or as scum, both are possible, one is intentional) or he also shares Goat's stubbornness. My original assertion that he was town was entirely based on not wanting to clearly distinguish between him and Dour, and finding Dour pro-town to begin with. He got "town by association" from that.

Birthday is the one I consider least likely to be town, both directly and indirectly, out of the three. Directly, his defense has been completely non-existant and he's done more than anyone else in incriminating himself.

I should also take this moment to RE-clarify a huge issue; I still don't think Goat's case is valid. I honestly saw Birthday as I saw him in my defense post when I made it. That was my read on him until Birthday came in and utterly destroyed it. Somehow, Goat/GIEFF have been trying to spin it that I "knew he was town" (note how they suddenly seem to assert he is town now that they have someone else to vote). Patently, and clearly, not true. Aside from Birthday basically saying what he did was patently scummy, and that Goat reaches the right conclusions, I thought his actions were sincere and mild.

Further is the continued spin that I haven't provided a solid stance on Birthday since then, but I'm pretty sure town knows that this is a spin :/.

I keep getting distracted and I have things I need to do right now so I'll have to finish later.

[GIEFF]

Your entire post is deflection. You don't answer a

single

point raised. Ridiculous.

The whole way this scene is playing out, and especially GIEFF switching votes at Birthday gets another, seems way too opportunistic to me. I suspect at least 2, if not all 3, out of Birthday, Goat, and GIEFF to be scum.

Wonderful. I go from being one of only two people you see as town to being in your three-most-scummiest, and all because I attacked you. You never focus on people until after they disagree with you or attack you.

My original assertion that he

(GIEFF)

was town was entirely based on not wanting to clearly distinguish between him and Dour, and finding Dour pro-town to begin with. He got "town by association" from that.

Ridiculous.

Confirm vote Zilla

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?


-------

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.

No. This is not true. A major part of the case was his suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon.

GIEFF: my best bet now. He exited his case against panzer with an unfalsifiable argument, and was on both BB and Zilla's wagon in time.

Do you think my disengage was scummier than B_B's? Did you even notice B_B's? Or is exiting the Panzer case only scummy when I do it?

B_B's behavior was a lot scummier than Panzer's had been up to that point, so I switched. I think Zilla's behavior has been scummier than B_B's, so I switched again. I wasn't just "on the wagon," I contributed to both, and explained my logic. Didn't you say aggressive play was pro-town? Or is that only when Panzer does it?

I am not defending myself here, mykonian, I am attacking you. Your reasons for voting me apply just as well if not better to other players. B_B's disengage from the Panzer wagon was EXTREMELY scummy, and Goatrevolt has been on the same two wagons.

I believe you are voting me because you just realized that you still aren't voting for anyone and you want to appease my charge of you being wishy-washy. If the reasons you gave for voting me were genuine, you would be suspicious of others who exhibited the same behavior.

[mykonian]

I believe you are voting me because you just realized that you still aren't voting for anyone and you want to appease my charge of you being wishy-washy. If the reasons you gave for voting me were genuine, you would be suspicious of others who exhibited the same behavior.

I believe that you are right, when I state that my vote is a gamble. I don't have a solution for GIEFF-Panzer, I have to assume that one of the two made a mistake.

Then we have two very weak tells: that you are on two wagons I don't like.

and last, my "solution" to your argument that I could believe.

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

[Zilla]

I don't like your call for me to be a martyr at all. I had been considering it but it's still too early to do anything of that sort. I'm only leading by one vote while Birthday is only one behind me. I still think Birthday is a better lynch than myself, since he's got a higher chance of being scum and provides the same level of information. Again, you want us to ignore Birthday.

If you become a valid choice though, I'd consider picking you over Birthday. He's been on cruise control for scum the whole time but you've been speeding toward it like a rocket since your disengagement from Birthday. Yeah, you can try to whitewash it by saying I'm only attacking my attacker, but that doesn't cover up the incredibly scummy opportunistic disengage from Birthday when the heat got turned up.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.

No. This is not true. A major part of the case was his suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon.

Note: Mykonian said this, not me.

As Gieff said, Zilla's post is deflection and I think that Mykonian is being too cautious in this game.

Big fat meaningless FoS: Mykonian.

[qwints]

I read the attack on zilla to be more based on her abrasiveness than her actual play. Being aggressive is pro-town (especially on day 1.) I need to re-read more closely to see if there is a scummy motive behind the misrepresentation, but right now I remain convinced that BB is scum given his "you're right, my play was scummy" statements.

[mykonian]

I think that Mykonian is being too cautious in this game.

Big fat meaningless FoS: Mykonian.

let's make a promise: day 2 will be better. It always is. One of the reasons I like replacing in. You have evidence to work from, and luckily, day 1 will give a lot of information. Only subgenius, qwints, spring and militant will be big holes, I think.

[Zilla]

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..."

Where was this when I was saying the same thing about goat on panzer?

[Beyond_Birthday]

mmm... yes.

This is true. Subgenius strikes me as semi town, but his posts are too far between to really gain any read.

I think that qwints is also nearly impossible to read.

Spring has gone absent for a long time.

I think militant is town at the moment, but same as the others.

[Dourgrim]

It looks like it'll be Monday before I can post in any depth, but here are things to remind myself of for tomorrow's post:

1) respond to GIEFF's questions and points raised before

2) I have finished reading through page 21, have to read 22-24 (or wherever we end up) tomorrow

3) lynch all lurkers

Tomorrow, then!

[Goatrevolt]

I'm shocked at the lack of support for the Zilla wagon. This is an open-shut case. Her actions do not fit a town mindset. Her vote on Birthday makes no sense based on her play (I made this abundantly clear in I believe it was post 544). Note how she did not even bother to defend against that, but instead went the route of deflection. Her scum team is comprised of the people attacking her presumably based on the fact that they are attacking her. However, she is unable to defend against those attacks. Fancy that. We must be three excellent scum, if we can present a case against Zilla that she cannot defend against and instead has chosen to simply ignore it and attack us instead.

Note how she makes definitive claims like "GIEFF is one of the most pro-town people in the game" and then changes her mind simply because he attacks her. Her explanation now? That she just lumped GIEFF in with Dourgrim and didn't even take the time to analyze him before calling him pro-town. Does that make any sense? Zilla, who has shown that she is willing to pull out the most minor aspects of posts and make huge deals out of them is saying that she had GIEFF as her most pro-town player without even looking at his play? Give me a break. This is the same crap she pulled when she changed her mind on Birthday, and when she changed her mind from saying the SK discussion was stupid to that it was valid when she needed an additional reason to vote for Mykonian. I don't know how to make it more obvious that Zilla is scum who cannot keep her story straight. Nothing she says makes sense. She is flailing because she has been caught, and I can't believe we are not finishing the job.

Mykonian: You are looking too hard to find possible ways Zilla could be town, rather than acknowledge the more likely situation that Zilla is scum. You seem to want guarantees and confirmed scum before committing to anything. That simply is not possible in the game of mafia. There is

always

a possibility someone is town. That is the nature of the game. It's possible Zilla, as town, was not voting for or even attacking her top suspect, defended BB without even bothering to know the case against him, was misleading about GIEFF being among her top townies, has outstanding points she can't defend against so she deflects, and votes Birthday despite repeatedly arguing over and over again that I was her top target, not Birthday. It's possible she makes this continued series of scummy plays as town. Is that likely, though? Not at all.

Qwints: The argument against Zilla has nothing to do with her being abrasive. If that is your opinion on it, then you are not paying attention.

Springlullaby: Please stop lurking.

Ting: You noted my post regarding subgenius and suggesting your agreement with it. Then you did not provide your own opinion on the same topic that I attacked subgenius over. What is your take on Zilla?

[mykonian]

and I thought I was lazy today. Just a small post to explain myself again.

Goat, mostly I'm hiding behind the too scummy falacy because I don't like how the bandwagon of Zilla grows. It simply seems too easy.

[Zilla]

Yeah, keep pushing that "solidarity" angle, and continue the hypocritical deflection, and continue warping reality, and continue to double-speak about Birthday, and continue to misrepresent my reasons for voting Birthday.

I'm "deflecting" because I give town much more credit than having to correct every mistake you build into your posts (examples from last post, "GIEFF is my top townie" when I said I consider he and Dour to be town a long time ago, heaven forbid my opinion changes; Again bringing up the miscommunication on my part when I said the SK discussion was stupid when I didn't fully understand what was going on and who was who\.) Nevermind that I have a valid point that anyone stressing lynching the SK over the mafia when we don't even know there is an SK is likely trying to distract the town from hunting the mafia; somehow implying that because Birthday was a valid choice that I should not have voted him, despite CONSTANT appeals from him to do so:

"Vote him!"
"No, I'm voting you!"
"<arguments> Vote him or you're scum."
"<counter-arguments> No, I'm voting you, I think you're scum."

-repeat-

"Vote him or you're scum!"
"You know, it will at least give information on you, and I do suspect him, so fine, vote birthday."
"OMG SCUM."


I don't like how they've changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town. OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

@ Myk: It's not "too easy" so much as "too fast" and extremely suspiciously timed. You've also been extremely fishy in all this for not committing one way or another, that's the whole "dancing at the edge of the spotlight" thing I was talking about. Crazy conspiracy perhaps, but it's possible you're the missing link...

That... that makes some sense.

You won't commit to a stance either way because scum naturally won't put all their eggs in one basket; when I flip town, if the entire scumwagon was on me, that'd make it all too easy. Instead, you're sticking to the sidelines and playing it safe, but keeping your options open for later.

If there's one thing Goat's right on, it's that SL needs to stop lurking. In all the time I've been in this game, her only posts have been "catching up." On one hand, she's probably being thorough, which I can't fault, but on the other, she hasn't even commented on what she's read so far. Ting did a good job in that regard, and it probably encouraged him to participate more. I suggest Spring do as ting did and comment on the game wherever it is that she's at.

[PJ.]

Zilla, how is my lack of input disconcerting when I said I was V/LA?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Yeah, keep pushing that "solidarity" angle, and continue the hypocritical deflection, and continue warping reality, and continue to double-speak about Birthday, and continue to misrepresent my reasons for voting Birthday.

It is day one. Saying anyone is scum with 100% certainty is an impossibility. However, you are the scummiest player in my eyes. I presented a bulleted case, which you don't seem to care to acknowledge the existence of, that shows you are the scummiest player because of you actions. So it isn't as simple as "I vote BB and now I'm scum. GRR!"

I don't like how they've changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him.

False. You clearly don't read posts, do you?

That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

They haven't said I'm town, they've said that your more likely to be scum. Misrep much?

*Note: Omitted things are something that only Goat can answer, something aimed Myk that I had rather see his response to, and an attack on SL based on her absence which is actually valid.

[Goatrevolt]

"Vote him!"
"No, I'm voting you!"
"<arguments> Vote him or you're scum."
"<counter-arguments> No, I'm voting you, I think you're scum."

-repeat-

"Vote him or you're scum!"
"You know, it will at least give information on you, and I do suspect him, so fine, vote birthday."
"OMG SCUM."

This is another misrepresentation. I have never once told you to vote Birthday. I explained how your lack of a vote on Birthday was suspicious because at the time (this was around like post 380) he was your top suspect according to the logic you gave us. You didn't act accordingly. However, when you DID vote Birthday (post 5xx), you made it exceedingly clear that I was your top suspect in numerous posts preceding to the vote on Birthday. That is suspicious. Again you are not voting your top suspect, and you were voting for someone who was close to a lynch.

I never once told you vote Birthday or you are scum. However, let's even go so far as to assume I had done so for the sake of utter completeness. That means you were voting Birthday at my request, the request of the person you most believed to be scum, and you were doing so under the idea that you didn't want to get called scum. That's about as scummy as it gets.

In other words, if we are to believe the above exchange, you voted Birthday, despite me being your top suspect:

1. At the behest of me and/or GIEFF, two players you were pairing repeatedly as scum.
2. Because you didn't want to get called "scum" by us.
3. Despite Birthday going down in scum likelihood if I'm scum.

This is a horrible scummy explanation fueled by yet another misrepresentation. Seriously, how can people read this and not want to lynch Zilla?

I don't like how they've

changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him

. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying

I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

Bolded sections are contradictory. The first bolded section says that we changed our mind about Birthday

because

you voted him. The second bolded section says that we voted you

because

we changed our mind about Birthday. You're arguing two separate and contradictory reasons to try to call us scum.

I also like how you say "Opinions can't change" as a sarcastic jab at us suspecting your vote change to Birthday. However, the irony is your entire paragraph above is trying to call us scummy because we changed our opinion.

I will give you the difference, though. You changed your opinion from voting me (your top suspect; making birthday less likely to be scum) to voting Birthday with no reasoning. You spent tons of words explaining how I was your number 1 suspect over and over again, and then you went on and changed your vote to Birthday, who was the closest to getting lynched, with no underlying reasoning. The only reasoning you've even begun to provide is that "Birthday's alignment will help your read of me." However, the contrary is also true: "My alignment will help your read of Birthday." In essence, you had no reason to change your vote to him. You did so either because you wanted to appease us and get us off your back, or because you wanted to quickly generate a lynch on Birthday since you saw things shifting in your direction, or you wanted to deflect from the valid (and still unanswered) question GIEFF nailed you with. Maybe a combination of all of the above.

On the other hand, we changed our opinion based on actual evidence in the thread. There were reasons behind it. Our assessment of your play, followed by your scummy defense of those points led to the vote for me. I can't speak for GIEFF, but I assume it was that + your scummy vote on Birthday that did it for him. Our vote was based on evidence. Your vote was based on 1 flimsy reason that is faulty and a lot of possible scum motivations.

Goat, mostly I'm hiding behind the too scummy falacy because I don't like how the bandwagon of Zilla grows. It simply seems too easy.

Too easy? Zilla is stuck at 4 votes. Both qwints and you have weighed in and are not open to the wagon. A couple of other players have commented since the Zilla thing started firing up (ting/subgenius/still waiting on Dour) but haven't committed at all.

I'm struggling to get people to commit to a wagon on obvious scum. This is not too easy.

[qwints]

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive. I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

[GIEFF]

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive. I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

Have you read the points against her? She is scum.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive.

I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

BOLDED is a contradiction.

ITALICS isn't a valid response since the alignment of all people are unknown, and you provide no reasoning to say it is scum driven. (This statements leads to "Ergo, people on the wagon are scum," which is a point you have failed to make.)

[qwints]

Not a contradiction.

The subject of the attack is not abrasiveness.
The motivation for attacking is that she is abrasive.

Simply put, she was recognized as an easy target which led to people looking for things to attack.