Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Dourgrim]

GIEFF: I answer your question re: my vote for Panzer in the above "wall-o-text." And, I believe the "Dourscum" thing to be part of a larger case, which is also in the "wall-o-text" post. Remember, though, you're not

at

the top of my list, you're just

near

it, so let's not focus too much on it for now, agreed?

[PJ.]

@GIEFF, currently I'm not willing to switch to B_B. I'll see after the claim.

[Zilla]

I'm waiting on Goat's summary, possibly BB's summary.

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.

I hate to point this out, but my suspicion on you grew significantly after that post, and even during it. This is the post in question. Note the "wait a minute" addendum.

... Though, looking back, why WASN'T I voting Birthday then? I really ought to have, but hindisght is 20/20 and all, and my suspicions at the time were rather focused on Goat for his relationship with Myk and Panzer.. That's all pretty much in the past at this point, and we're dealing with a different issue now (though come to think of it, that issue was never really resolved as it was, and now Panzer's pretty eager to follow Goat's lead).

That, and I was still not sure how to deal with Birthday destroying my faith in him, I guess.

[ting =)]

Hey guys.

I posted in the v/la thread. Maybe I should have posted here too. In any case, my connection's back.

[qwints]

I'm not a big fan of the "Oh, I played incorrectly, now let's move on" style of defense. BB did it and now Zilla has participated in it. Zilla seems to be saying she was tunneling on Goat instead of trying to find scum.

FOS: Zilla

[militant]

Post 305-

GIEFF's case on Beyond_Birthday

Just to clarify, you asked me to evaluate the Beyond_Birthday case so I have used the gadget at the bottom of the thread to select just your posts and I find the above post. I was wondering if there are additional posts you want me to consider because I can. From a quick look through the six pages of huge posts you have produced this seems to be the main "jist" of your case.

Right then...

Regarding the very first sentences, I happen to think his conduct there was more scummy than the quotes that you outlined below the first sentence.

Meh...
I don't like some of the points being made against Panzer in this last post. Half of your argument seems to be reduced to a "random vote" that was claimed to have been, at the time of its posting, "not random" (by implication).

Unvote

This quote screams apathy and a player trying desperately to find at least one valid criticism of the post by the player he was obviously following. What makes it worse is that because Beyond_Birthday didn't like points made by GIEFF about Panzer he unvotes Panzer. I just don't get it. Why if you believe GIEFF is making exaggerations do you not vote him. Another thing that strikes me as fishy is that because GIEFF made a case against Panzer but Beyond_Birthday unvoted and apparently did not suspect Panzer any longer because in his next post he starts ripping into the then new replacee Zilla. The post after that he even goes as far as to say he thinks Panzer is town:

Panzerjager -

For the most part, I don’t agree with a good deal of Pan’s assessments, but I know that Pan looks more like a victim for a majority of this game than an actual contender. (And by victim, I mean that the case on her looks like it was derived from a really crappy foundation and though the bandwagon should have had the purpose of forcing discussion, it kind of backfired and stalled. Maybe no one joined it scummily enough for it to be useful, but I think it should have served that function. Pan’s attacks on Spring though seem like legitimate attempts at scum hunting, so I feel a slight town vibe from Panzer. Her thought that my unvote was scummy struck me as odd, but I don’t really care if I look scummy.

Your main argument after that consisted of a contradiction posted by Beyond_Birthday about his motivations to join the wagon. He first said he agreed with GIEFF when he pointed out Panzer must have taken mykonian's vote seriously to use it to accuse mykonian of being mafia. Beyond_Birthday then later disagrees by saying:

it is just a petty argument over, apparently, a random vote.

He says it is a random vote which contradicts with his earlier agreement with GIEFF when he said it was not because Panzer used it to accuse and vote mykonian.

You don't have to read that guys-

I was mainly explaining what was going on to myself as I do. To summarize Beyond_Birthday has being bandwagoning and changing what he thinks to facilitate this bandwagoning as GIEFF picked up. This is scummy, I cannot really deny that but I would only lynch Beyond_Birthday if we had no other option. I am sure there are posts I have missed so if you could kindly like to point them out to me I would appreciate it and I shall get evaluating them too. Since I have evaluated the case against Beyond_Birthday I shall look over my current vote and the reasons I am voting Zilla and compare them to see which case (Beyond_Birthday or Zilla) warrants my vote more. Thus:

Unvote

Where was the other claim? i haven't seen any claims.

Also dour..I'm not reading any more wall-o-texts. it's annoying.

Would some explain this "wall-o-text" thing to me please. I don't know what it means

[PJ.]

That's all pretty much in the past at this point, and we're dealing with a different issue now (though come to think of it, that issue was never really resolved as it was, and now Panzer's pretty eager to follow Goat's lead).

That's funny when I'm not even reading post at this point. I'm just skimming and crtl+f-ing my name and answer that waiting for you to claim.

Now claim Zilla.

[mykonian]

I'm just skimming and crtl+f-ing my name and answer that waiting for you to claim.

and when are you going to start to help us? Please tell me how that is close to being protown...

Now claim Zilla.

this is true though.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I believe that with Militant's willingness to vote Zilla (or myself, admittedly) that make the seven votes necessary for lynch. (L-2+militant+Gieff)

I demand a claim from Zilla.

[PJ.]

@myk, This is only until we claim. I previously asserted why and that I was not gonna be readin post until she claims. Afterward, I would be more then happy to assist you guys.

[Zilla]

I'm not a big fan of the "Oh, I played incorrectly, now let's move on" style of defense. BB did it and now Zilla has participated in it. Zilla seems to be saying she was tunneling on Goat instead of trying to find scum.

FOS: Zilla

I should be more explicit; this is where Goat didn't give a clear answer to my question over what he thought of Panzer for 4 pages, and my current vote was on Mykonian, not Goat. I had this to say about it:

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

-----

Heh, while diving for this post, I came across this one which I assume a lot of people just skimmed over, though this one still contains answers to Goat's case (that he still hasn't posted), and even raises some accusations that still haven't been adequately answered. Have a read.

[Goatrevolt]

Busy weekend, busy with schoolwork for the next 2 days. I'll try to get the summary of my case up, but I'm not going to guarantee anything. This would be an excellent time for those who are lurking to join us, though.

Zilla: I noted that post in my own post 544. I mentioned that I was willing to answer it, but wasn't going to unless people wanted me to. Nobody said anything, so I assumed nobody wanted me to give a large response to it.

[Zilla]

You call that an answer?

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.

Lol wut? Talk about misconstruction, and I've already explained my reaction to BB's post. Saying that it could be something else, and treating it as fact, doesn't change reality.

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

Almost as hilarious as completely ignoring the actual accusation, wherein I am talking about your refusal to be held accuontable (also repeated, never addressed), and not your overall playstyle.

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.

Did you miss this part?

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."

Re-reading the rest of the post, again, you're trying to spin my vote on Birthday really hard. The fact of the matter is that, while he's got a less chance of being scum, I realized nobody was even paying attention to you, and there's a significant chance Birthday is scum instead, so because nobody bothered examining you today, I resigned to voting for Birthday instead, if anything, because it had a chance of clearing you. That is until you unvoted Birthday afterward, now I'm much less convinced you're of opposite alignments, since your sincerity is in question. Your addendum at the end telling him not to claim only bolsters that notion.

I'm still fine either with Birthday or Goat, and I'm also fine with Panzer/Myk at this point. Honestly, this game has so many people asking for the noose that it's tough to figure out who the real scum are.

[Zilla]

Also, on the first quote, the "lol wut?" is about the "voting [Goat] for the same reasons I unvoted him." I unvoted him because he demonstrated that he has information on people's alignments? I don't think so.

Actually, I can't even recall why I unvoted him other than that he was finally willing to hold accountability, at least for a little while.

[qwints]

Zilla, I don't like the fact that you've ignored the request for a claim. Count me as demanding a claim as well.

[Goatrevolt]

You call that an answer?

Zilla, do you even read my posts? No, of course it wasn't an answer. That's why I said I was willing to answer it if necessary.

Look at the very first line of post 554. Then think for a second.

[PJ.]

ZILLA CLAIM!

[Dourgrim]

I agree. Zilla, why aren't you claiming?

[militant]

I believe that with Militant's willingness to vote Zilla (or myself, admittedly) that make the seven votes necessary for lynch. (L-2+militant+Gieff)

I demand a claim from Zilla.

What? Do we have a skimmer in our midst?

I asked for a Zilla claim back on page 26; post 648. I still support the call for a Zilla claim.

[ting =)]

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?

Wait,

what?

This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

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?

re sub, I didn't provide my opinion because:

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

as in: I had my thoughts on the subgenius post typed out, read your reply to it, and then decided that they were similar to the point that I'd be repeating points that you already raised in a more succint manner.

re zilla - hold on, let me read everything first before I mention who I think are town/scum. Something in the further pages might change my mind. If you want a tentative opinion though, Zilla's not on my most-certainly-town-list.

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS: please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess, please say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

I disagree. I've said before that I don't really like how gieff nitpicks and plays with semantics. I just haven't decided yet if it's a dislike because I think he's scummy for it or if it's because I think he's town but he does it so often. I could see gieff going either way, really.

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

No. Goat's attack on you is different from gieff's on dour. Gieff on dour read like nitpicking to the point of misrepresentation. Goat nitpicks but stays true. You'd obviously disagree, but that's how the two cases read to me.

I agree that players shouldn't ignore "scummy behavior." I have a question in return, though: if you don't think I'm going to be the lynch for today, and you don't want me to be the lynch for today, why are you going so far out of my way to prove my scumminess?

I don't agree with this. If we see scuminess anywhere, then we should always go out of our way to prove anyone's scuminess, even if they're not our top pick.

----

Okay, I have 2 pages left to go.

[GIEFF]

gieff wrote:

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?

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

Of course I knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself. This post was meant to demonstrate the fact that Zilla was NOT actually confident that she caught two or three scum, and that her statement was one of scummy self-preservation, not one she actually felt was true. Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question, giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.



I still don't want Zilla to claim, but we have 7 people demanding she do so, so she now needs to.

[springlullaby]

Ok, I'm up to page 20. However my keyboard is broken so do not expect anything big before at least 3 days.

[GIEFF]

HoS springlullaby

.

Is your keyboard only broken for this game?

These are your last two posts in ANY game, both less than an hour before your latest here.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... t=#1509590
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 19#1509519

[mykonian]

I still don't want Zilla to claim, but we have 7 people demanding she do so, so she now needs to.

why not? it seems like people want to lynch her? could be usefull to find out if you mislynch a powerrole, wouldn't it, GIEFF?

[GIEFF]

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.