Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[mykonian]

thank you GIEFF, I agree with you: let's make it even more official

unvote vote Spring

I think I have told you my view on policy lynches, the fact that you lose little means that a mislynch is not that big a problem, and when spring comes with excuses like this... well, let's try to see a scumtell in it.

and even if spring doesn't become the lynched, this vote can only do good, I think.

[GIEFF]

So you no longer want Zilla to claim, mykonian? If we aren't lynching Zilla today, she SHOULD NOT CLAIM.

You are all treating a Zilla-claim far too casually. If you don't want to lynch her, then don't make her claim.

[mykonian]

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

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

[mykonian]

So you no longer want Zilla to claim, mykonian? If we aren't lynching Zilla today, she SHOULD NOT CLAIM.

You are all treating a Zilla-claim far too casually. If you don't want to lynch her, then don't make her claim.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

[Zilla]

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.

Here, you do as you accuse me of: deflection. Look at this line in that post:

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

You call that an answer?

The rest of my post is valid.

I'm waiting on Goat's summary before I claim; I'd like to not have to and I'm feeling more and more confident that goat doesn't have a case, and I'm quite interested in Panzer's (in)actions at the moment.

In the absence of goat actually putting up a case, I may have to just compile all his accusations and my refutations, just for reference. Megapost incoming.

[GIEFF]

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

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

I definitely want to see a claim before we lynch somebody. I don't want to see a claim because I would rather lynch B_B, as I have said numerous times. I find it hard to believe you are really so confused as to think I want to lynch Zilla without a claim. As I JUST said, it looks like Zilla will be the lynch today, so that even though I am personally against a Zilla-claim, she should do so.


This is the second time you have been SO convinced I am scum that you have called the target of my aggression townie. You've done it with Panzer, and now you've done it with Zilla. I think these are slips by scum, revealing more than you should, but you have claimed that you only called them townie because you are so certain I am scum.

If you were SO sure I'm scum that you are making nested assumptions on other players' alignments based on your assumption that I am scum, you would be voting me, and trying to make a case on me to get others to do so, too.

Is anybody else in the game so sure of another player's alignment that you are ready to call the people that player attacks townies?

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

"WAS" being the operative word, considering your switch to springlullaby.

[Zilla]

While I disagree with that vote, it's not that scummy by itself. However, she tries to flower it up by providing other

weak reasoning.

First, be specific; what reasoning of mine is so weak? Your glittering generality seems to be a way to avoid letting your readers actually make up their mind about whether that reasoning actually was weak.

She was trying to stretch her vote into more than it actually was.

a vote?

When I shoot down that other reasoning, she merely moves on to other points,

Misconstruction: other points emerged on further analysis. If you're town, you shouldn't have problems answering accusations.

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

There's also his skewings, which I'll provide examples of throughout this post.

basically dismissing her poor reasoning and creating a deflection.

You didn't ever specify how I was "deflecting" or what I was "deflecting" from; I'm on the offensive, where am I going to deflect? Also, yet again, note the use of language; "poor reasoning" without citing any examples. Goat ignores my points where I tell him his defense is inadequate.

This is never brought up again.

She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer.

MISCONSTRUCTION. I know you were trying to elicit that response from me in some of your posts, but this is blatantly a lie. You are defending panzer by claiming logic says he's scum but your gut says he's town, and instead pushing against his lynch.

I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again.

Because that argument never existed. Moreover, how many arguments of mine have you dropped?

...

That's deflection. Rather than debate a point she knew was wrong, she merely threw suspicion on me for other reasons and dismissed it.

Here's the pot calling the China black; you always try to answer my arguments by contorting them bizzarely and answering different arguments that I didn't make.

I should further note that he's basically saying I'm not answering his argument just because I show him that his argument is wrong. What?

I feel she has led a similar crusade against Mykonian (making her case seem more than it actually is, rather than give the honest reasons she's voting him).

Links plz?

Further evidence not provided; point dropped.

Then there is her continued avoidance of giving a stance on BB.

I thought you were just being ironic. My stance on BB was pretty obvious, IMO.

Anyone else think I wasn't clear on my stance on BB?

And BB has a point. She was defending him prior to even knowing what my case on him was about. After he admitted my case was valid, she threw out a "I need to reassess BB because he agreed with Goat's case" post, but has played as though he is town from that point onward.

Links plz?

GIEFF provides links here:

Here is your post 385, where you say Goat's case on BB is bad, and defend BB's behavior. In it, you even say:

Yeah, call it chainsaw if you like, but I'm explaining why I don't buy your case.

I explain why it isn't chainsaw defense, it's my reasons for not buying Goat's weak case.

And here is your post 387, where you are forced to admit that Goat's case IS valid.

Answered here:

Both of these are incorrect. I still don't admit Goat's case is "strong." BB basically self-implicated with his post, not because Goat's case was valid but because BB said goat "reached the right conclusions." Even if Goat had a faulty case, BB essentially claims that he was right to suspect him. His play afterward is mind-boggling, and I've been over how he's trying to lessen his scumminess by actually being the one to point it out and take ownership of it.

If you look through her recent posting, you will see her discuss anything and everything but BB. I called her out on not taking a stance, and her post last night ignored my question (which I asked in both posts).

Again, I thought you were being ironic, and my stance on birthday was pretty clear from this post.

Frankly, I feel she has created a lot of confusion and has "muddied the waters" since joining the game. She has shown she's not stupid, yet she consistently misrepresents or doesn't grasp the simple concepts my posts are discussing.

Case in point: Me saying we should lynch for scum not lynch for information, using the example of Panzer if he is town. "Zilla: Goat doesn't want information. Goat knows Panzer is town." Both are gross misrepresentations and I'm having a harder and harder time seeing her legitimately not understand those posts as opposed to deliberately misrepresenting them.

You fail to answer the accusation and instead try to deflect back on me. Hypocrisy++.

I'm sure I addressed this again somewhere else, but the accusation he ignored was that he was basically saying we can't lynch panzer because if he's town, we gain no information. This is wrong on more than one level. First off, we definitely gain information, and secondly, he's using a contradictory standpoint between "Don't lynch for information" and "We can't lynch panzer because he provides no information." He implies that he either knows that Panzer is a bad choice of lynch using information that is not available to town.

Then there is the hypocrisy inherent in "it's scummy when Goat is 'hypersensitive' or 'aggressively defensive'" yet Zilla responded in exactly the same fashion when I nailed her with her own logic.

Links plz?

Links not provided.

I feel like I'm Christian Bale here, and Zilla is a Director of Photography checking the lights while I'm trying to do a scene. It's distracting.

Constantly forcing me to defend myself over misrepresentations of my stances is both annoying and distracting

, and it's certainly not helping us catch scum or decide on a lynch.

Bold: So you know how I feel then?

Should be noted that he hasn't shown at all where my accusations aren't true; many times he ignores them and instead attacks me, something he also accuses me of.

================

Goat and GIEFF have both pointed to this:

@ GIEFF: I'm not as suspicious of Panzer as I am of Myk, if I had to put percentages down, Myk's at 50%, Panzer's at 40%, and Goat's at 20%, for likely to be scum.

And ridden me for not mentioning Birthday. This was in response to GIEFF's post:

And now, Mykonian hands the chainsaw over to Goat.

So you are suggesting a goat-mykonian-panzer scum pair?

That's why Birthday isn't there, and I'm answering for how I stood before Birthday's simulpost of scumminess. I address later why my vote is still on Mykonian, and I say I'll support a Birthday lynch if Mykonian fails to gain any ground, until Goat usurped both Mykonian and Birthday.

====================

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

[GIEFF]

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.
   
   subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.
   
   
3. In Zilla's next post, she doesn't specifically address ANYTHING that either Goat or subgenius said. If Zilla really felt these reasons were valid, I feel she would have shown some disagreement, instead of just ignoring them. At the end of this post, she says:
   

   That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

   A new reason is presented, although the previous reasons were shown to be faulty (yet not addressed by Zilla). This is the "extending the case" accusation, in action. It is odd that you say NOBODY owns their case, yet present this as a reason for voting for Goat. Why not apply it to anybody else?
   
   
4. mykonian says, again, that your vote of Goat makes no sense.
   
   militant agrees that your initial reasons are bad, and calls your latest reason (the "case-extender") "laughable."
   
   Beyond_Birthday also tells Zilla why he doesn't agree with her logic.
   
   
   If I had 5 players telling me my reasons for voting somebody were ridiculous, I would either try to refute them, or drop the case. Zilla did neither.
   
   
   
5. In Zilla's next post, instead of explaining why she thinks her previous 4 reasons really are valid, and why the 5 people telling her they are NOT valid are all wrong, she comes up two more reasons (e. "aggressively defensive" and f. "he just switched is vote for poor reasons").
   

   Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).
   
   Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

   Again, this is Zilla extending her case. She presented some reasons when she initially voted Goat. These were shot down. She didn't respond to the fact that they were shot down, and simply threw out a new reason. This new reason was also shot down, and instead of responding, she threw out TWO MORE reasons. Double-case extension.
   
   
6. In Goat's next post, he resonds to all of Zilla's accusations.
   
   And in Zilla's "long, boring post" is when the first accusations of misrepresentation start. Many of Zilla's responses to Goat in this post don't respond to what Goat is saying, but simply say "that is false and a misrepresentation" and ignore the point that was trying to be made.
   
   I didn't notice Zilla doing this until she did it to me, but reading back carefully now, it is as clear as day. And from that point forward, the back-and-forth between Goat and Zilla deteriorated into a he-said, she-said morass of quotes, misrepresentations, attacks, emotions, and unreadable wall-o-texts (which just means a big wall of text, i.e. a very long post).

I have no desire to summarize the rest of the Zilla-Goat interactions, but I'm pretty confident that the above is an accurate representation of what happened initially, and shows very clearly what is meant by the "extending your case" argument, i.e. Zilla's inital vote for Goat was "shot down, and instead of re-evaluating her case, she came up with new reasons and started deflecting.


Do you disagree with anything I've said here, Zilla? Anybody else?


----------

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.

Please try to get something up soon. I asked you for a summary a long time ago.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Fos Gieff

I've concluded that if Zilla is scum you are. You voted for Zilla several pages ago with little mention of any intent to lynch me. Now, suddenly, you think that lynching me is superior to lynching Zilla whle backing no proof. The great part is that you have made several points against Zilla.

Short form: You are indecisive. You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid. You are not because you are disagreeing with yourself. I conclude you are therefore mafia for contradicting your own theory on play.

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

[Goatrevolt]

Reasons I believe Zilla to be scum:

1.

Stretching her reasoning to make her votes seem more valid

.

I find this to be a big scum tell. There are no reasons for a townie to attempt to "stretch" their case into more than it actually is. If you think someone is scum because of X, there isn't any reason to toss in Y or Z that are essentially irrelevant to spice it up. Scum, however, will do this to make their cases seem to be more than they are and to make their votes appear more legitimate.

a) Her initial vote on me. She voted me because I was pissing her off by not providing a summary of the game. That kind of morphed into me not being "accountable" because I didn't give her one. That was her reason. What she did, was stretch her case into "more" by also attacking my vote on MacavityLock (based on reasons she had not bothered to look into), by attacking my style of defending myself (a style she also utilizes), and by attacking my playstyle as scummy. Those three reasons add up to essentially nothing, and were not the reason Zilla voted me at all. So why does she add them to the case?

b) Her vote on Mykonian. Her vote on him is mostly because he asked her to. Meh, ok. Why add in the point about him being the first to mention a SK, then? She had just finished going on and on about how we spent too much time stuck in the random phase and too much time discussing all the SK nonsense, then she turns around and includes it as a reason for voting Mykonian? Really? Willing to change your mind that quickly when you need another point against someone?

2.

Hypocrisy

.

I don't think hypocrisy by itself is a huge point, because townies can occasionally have a bit of hypocrisy. However, I do think hypocrisy points more to scum than town. Attacking someone over something you are equally as guilty of reflects insincerity. If you play a certain way, then there's no reason for you to consider that a scumtell in others.

a) Post 297. In this post, we see Zilla vote for Mykonian essentially from 4 "off the cuff" 1 liners. Sound familiar? She has just finished attacking me for voting Birthday without going into detail on my reasons. And she does the exact same thing.

b) Attacking me as scum for aggressively defending myself, or responding in a hypersensitive manner to accusations against me. Zilla is guilty of exactly the same playstyle.

c) She asked me my current opinion on Panzer, despite me having given it to her recently, and I linked her to the post that outlined it. She harassed me 4 different times over providing a link rather than retyping it out (this matters, why??). Compare that with me asking her for her stance on Birthday. She first ignored it because she didn't think I was serious because it was in the thread, and then she responded by giving me a link to the post where she mentioned it. If Zilla had such a giant issue (she went crazy over this meaningless point) with me linking to my stance rather than simply retyping it out, and if she actually believed it to be a meaningful tell in any sense, then there is no way in hell she links to her stance rather than retypes it out.

3.

Strawmanning

.

Strawmanning is essentially pulling one aspect of a case or a point out, arguing against that specific aspect, and then expanding that to say that the entire case is flawed. Oftentimes scum will do that to avoid answering points they cannot answer, or to generate suspicion. For example, let's say I lay down a Martin Luther style 95 reasons to think someone is scum. You pick out reason 84, argue against it, and then go on to say my case is flawed. Maybe that specific reason is flawed, but it doesn't nullify the case in entirety. Maybe I say something like "if Panzer is town, what would we gain from his lynch" as a challenge to people suggesting lynching for information is acceptable and you go on to extract "Panzer is town" and attribute it to my belief. At any rate, here are the examples I've given before:

a) Post 385. I mention that I don't understand which of two possible mindsets Birthday had. You cut it off and take my "I don't understand" out of context to imply that I don't understand the Birthday situation at large. That's a strawman. You then proceed to dismiss my reasoning, saying that Birthday's large post would clear it up, which suggests that YOU were the one who didn't understand, considering the section you had just quoted above is in direct contradiction to that.

b) Post 480 - Post 482. In the first post I attack the idea that lynching Panzer is acceptable even if he is town. In that second post Zilla attacks me on the basis that I'm defending against a Panzer lynch because he could be town. Strawman. She rips out my example scenario and attacks it as my belief.

I will admit that this is one of the weaker aspects of my case, not because I'm wrong about her strawmanning me, but because it's plausible that Zilla does this as town. However, at a certain point, the way she goes about doing it becomes scummy. I won't go into detail on that yet, I want to see how she responds to the above first.

4.

Backtracking

.

a) Post 396. This post can basically be summed up as, "I didn't bother looking into the validity of Goat's arguments enough to realize that he was actually correct about Birthday." I find this scummy, because she went out of her way to defend Birthday, and clearly did so without a full grasp of the situation. Why as town, would you stretch yourself to defend a player without truly understanding the extent of the case against him? I argue that she was doing this entirely to discredit my case for the purpose of throwing suspicion on me.

b) Post 459. I discussed this in Post 551. Her language use here is highly suspect. "I may have" or "perhaps it was just" or "this has aged well (what does that even mean?)." This doesn't express confidence or truthfulness at all. Either you did or you did not change your mind, there is no "may" about it. I think this is scummy. If she truly had a change of heart regarding the usefulness of the SK discussion, I doubt her post would read like an elaborate cover up. Again, I think she changed her mind because she needed more dirt on Mykonian, and here is where her slippery behavior caught up to her and she had to try to cover her butt.

c) Post 471 she lists GIEFF as last on her suspect list with Dour. Now in Post 580 she states that GIEFF was originally one of her most pro-town players because she didn't want to distinguish his play from Dour? Apparently Zilla found Gieff to be one of her top two townies, and didn't even bother to look into his play to make that judgment.

5. Inconsistencies/Scummy behavior.

a) Defending BB without an understanding of my case against him. I gave 3 "off the cuff 1 liners" as my vote reasoning. She instantly attributed my case against him as poor for that reason (note above where she employs the same vote style to Mykonian), but yet she didn't even understand the extent of my case. She didn't know what his "suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon" was, yet rejected my case despite being in the dark there. When I did go into detail regarding that, she argued it was a bad case despite having a very incomplete understanding of the situation.

b) This has been brought up before, but she was not voting or pursuing Birthday despite him being her top suspect. At post 387, she listed Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and myself at 20% in terms of suspicion. Later on, she notes that Birthday was at 75%, and that her suspicion level regarding Birthday had not changed from the time of that post. Why then, was she not voting for, or pressuring Birthday whatsoever, despite him being her top suspect? Instead, she was pressuring me (20%), and her pressure was because I linked to a post detailing my suspicion of Panzer, rather than retype it. Zilla didn't even bother to check that link, because she proceeded to argue against 240, not 295, the post that I had linked. So rather than attack her top suspect, Birthday, she attacked me, over something entirely meaningless and a misrepresentation (post 240 rather than 295).

c) However, and I point this out very clearly in Post 554, Zilla then goes on to vote for BB, despite arguing that I was her top suspect over and over again with GIEFF, and despite the idea that BB is less likely to be scum if I am scum. Furthermore, in a couple of places, she responds in a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do" manner, which is suspicious because GIEFF and myself are two players she linked as scum. Why would she ever want to do what her scum team said to do? For reference: Post 575 and Post 592. The first post is a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do post" and the 2nd is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and reflects her mindset of voting Birthday to avoid suspicion rather than because she legitimately believed him most likely to be scum. Again, why would she vote Birthday because the two people she paired as scum (myself, GIEFF) pressured her to do so? I will also note, that I told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

d) Deflection. She loves to defend against a strawman of my arguments or turn it around and attack me "instead" of defending against the point I make. I give 3 examples of deflection in Post 551, although there are more places she does this.

-------

That is basically the summary of my case against her. Points 1, 4, 5 are the major reasons behind why I think she is scum. 2 and 3 (Hypocrisy/Strawmanning) are not as big of reasons, but I do still believe they suggest Zilla as scum (hypocrisy suggests insincerity, for instance).

I'll answer/address other posts after I get some dinner.

[GIEFF]

Fos Gieff

I've concluded that if Zilla is scum you are. You voted for Zilla several pages ago with little mention of any intent to lynch me. Now, suddenly, you think that lynching me is superior to lynching Zilla whle backing no proof. The great part is that you have made several points against Zilla.

Short form: You are indecisive. You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid. You are not because you are disagreeing with yourself. I conclude you are therefore mafia for contradicting your own theory on play.

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

First of all, I don't believe you ever responded to by Post 690, which should clear some of this up, and in which I ask you some questions.

What has changed between Post 690 and now that caused you to FOS me? Why have you ignored the points I raised and the questions I asked in my post 690? Your FOS looks like OMGUS self-preservation to me.

I still find Zilla quite scummy, and seeing her lynched would be an acceptable day 1 outcome to me. I would just prefer to lynch you, as I find you just as scummy, if not scummier, and your lynch does not have the same problems with it that I see in a Zilla lynch. See Post 681 for a list of the problems I see with the lynch. I know you didn't miss this post, so I don't understand why you are pretending not to know why I would prefer to lynch you. I have been quite clear about my reasoning.

You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid.

I did no such thing. Show me where I did this.

Link and quote,

or you're a damned dirty liar. I wish I had some extra "misrepresentation+"'s to throw at you, but Zilla has exhausted the supply.

Short form: You are indecisive.

Yes, I am. I find both you and Zilla scummy, but I think that you (B_B) are the best lynch, based on problems I see with the Zilla-wagon.

I also think springlullaby is likely to be scum, based on her lie about her keyboard not working, even though she didn't mention this in any of her other games (in which she is quite active). Panzer and mykonian still strike me as quite scummy.

I see a lot of scummy behavior, a lot of good lynch-targets, so it's difficult to make up my mind. If you want to explain why that is scummy, then go ahead, but if you're going to try to use my own scum-hunting theory against me, please attempt to understand it first.

-----

Thank you, Goat; that is very clear, especially with the links to posts.

[Goatrevolt]

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I did shoot down that other reasoning. It looks like GIEFF just provided the links to prove it. My initial case on BB was not weak. You still have not suggested in any way how three one line statements makes a case weak (and if you do actually believe this, your case on Mykonian would be similarly "weak"). I also have not extended my Birthday case, at all. Where have I done so? You really love to make accusations without any underlying backup.

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

I was joining a growing bandwagon on Birthday? Really? Mykonian was the only other vote. I championed the wagon entirely. Pulled reasons out of thin air? Damn, I must be a skilled magician, because Birthday agreed with my reasoning.

You need to make the rest of your post clearer. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes from, or what you're trying to even argue.

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

First of all, I mentioned that I was busy. Second of all, you didn't address anything even close to resembling my case on you. You pulled out random posts with stuff you wanted me to address or stuff I didn't address. If you wanted to address my case on you as found within the thread, you would have answered post 551 and 554. What you did here is essentially strawmanning. You pulled random quotes from god knows where and said "Goat didn't back this up, or goat hasn't qualified this, or Goat didn't address my complaint of him" and then argued against those specific points, essentially concluding my entire case is flawed, despite the fact that you haven't addressed the meat of my case at all. Fancy footwork there.

[Goatrevolt]

I wish I had some extra "misrepresentation+"'s to throw at you, but Zilla has exhausted the supply.

Hahaha.

I also think springlullaby is likely to be scum, based on her lie about her keyboard not working, even though she didn't mention this in any of her other games (in which she is quite active). Panzer and mykonian still strike me as quite scummy.

SL mentioned keyboard issues in the other game I am playing with her. I don't think she is directly lying about something so trivial. She lurked extensively in that game as well, although recently she has become more active.

Lest I be crucified for my error, I want to note that

I will also note, that I

never

told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

I screwed up the above quote. Bolded is the fix.

[Zilla]

First, to GIEFF, part of the reason it looks like it does is because I was rereading the thread as I was continuing to post. You guys had already established characters with each other, but I didn't have that luxury, and I was only really getting anything valid from Goat, and it was provoking interest.

I think the link between extending a case being scummy is somewhat weak as well, especially when I'm replacing in and still catching up. I replaced and hit the ground running in this game and actually managed to launch into the two mafiattes almost immediately. Even if Goat wasn't scum, the accusations ought to have generated some more information from players' reactions. It just happened that Goat's reaction was the scummiest.

Above, Goat tries to strengthen his case on this point as well, though I have to say the opposite is true. Town would extend their case with new information, scum wouldn't. It's far more likely that if scum hit a wall, they'll find someone else to push, rather than continue to attack the same person. If town are tuned in on somebody, and they continually drop scummy tells, of course they're going to add them to the case. It's also ironic how his entire case is a mirror of this tactic; he's "extended" his case in the same way I've extended mine.

She voted me because I was pissing her off by not providing a summary of the game.

I see you haven't learned.

From Post 292

Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted.

Half-right. It's initial cause is because you "didn't give me what I wanted," but it's not emotional, it's because you're uncooperative response seems incredibly scummy (read again, paranoia about creating inconsistencies, stemming possible inputs of information.

What she did, was stretch her case into "more" by also attacking my vote on MacavityLock (based on reasons she had not bothered to look into), by attacking my style of defending myself (a style she also utilizes), and by attacking my playstyle as scummy. Those three reasons add up to essentially nothing, and were not the reason Zilla voted me at all. So why does she add them to the case?

You put "more" in quotes? I'm attacking your lack of conviction on MacavityLock, not the vote itself, and you never did adequately explain it. It was a holdover from a long time ago in the SK debate. You then throw it away for an even weaker poke at Birthday that follows the general current at the time. This was never answered, just dismissed as "weak."

Then the style of defending yourself; you do exactly what scum do. You pretend accusations go away because you call them weak without answering them or showing why, you distort and misconstrue and spin things, and you act as though even looking into you is worthy of suspicion. In fact, the whole case on me for extending my arguments is an example of trying to equate suspecting Goat with being scummy.

As for it "somehow morphing into accountability," that was the entire issue to begin with, and STILL hasn't been answered.

As for accusing your playstyle of being scummy, that's something you brought up on your own. Here's what I had to say about it.

[quote="Zilla]Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town. You're pushing people on stupid non logic, you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you, and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static, and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you. [/quote]

[quote="Zilla]

3. You don't like my playstyle

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

b) Her vote on Mykonian. Her vote on him is mostly because he asked her to. Meh, ok. Why add in the point about him being the first to mention a SK, then? She had just finished going on and on about how we spent too much time stuck in the random phase and too much time discussing all the SK nonsense, then she turns around and includes it as a reason for voting Mykonian? Really? Willing to change your mind that quickly when you need another point against someone?

You missed many
points
here (yes, each word is a separate link).

2. Hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy by itself is a huge point, because townies can occasionally have a bit of hypocrisy. However, I do think hypocrisy points more to scum than town. Attacking someone over something you are equally as guilty of reflects insincerity. If you play a certain way, then there's no reason for you to consider that a scumtell in others.

The IRONY. Oh, the irony. Lord, you're killing me.

a) Post 297. In this post, we see Zilla vote for Mykonian essentially from 4 "off the cuff" 1 liners. Sound familiar? She has just finished attacking me for voting Birthday without going into detail on my reasons. And she does the exact same thing.

Huh,

missed this post

, eh? On the request of one person, I clarify and solidify my case as necessary. Instead, there is a long distance between

your initial accusations





and






your clarification.

b) Attacking me as scum for aggressively defending myself, or responding in a hypersensitive manner to accusations against me. Zilla is guilty of exactly the same playstyle.

Very maybe perhaps, though I answer my accusations, you distort them and and answer different, unrelated accusations, or outright ignore them, or outright ignore my answers to your accusations. I don't have to rely on deception to come clean, and I have admitted when I was wrong.

c) She asked me my current opinion on Panzer, despite me having given it to her recently, and I linked her to the post that outlined it. She harassed me 4 different times over providing a link rather than retyping it out (this matters, why??). Compare that with me asking her for her stance on Birthday. She first ignored it because she didn't think I was serious because it was in the thread, and then she responded by giving me a link to the post where she mentioned it. If Zilla had such a giant issue (she went crazy over this meaningless point) with me linking to my stance rather than simply retyping it out, and if she actually believed it to be a meaningful tell in any sense, then there is no way in hell she links to her stance rather than retypes it out.

Ummm... what? I did BOTH, I linked it, AND I typed it out (and also here)

And I've already answered that here:

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. 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.

3. Strawmanning. Strawmanning is essentially pulling one aspect of a case or a point out, arguing against that specific aspect, and then expanding that to say that the entire case is flawed.

Because it's the truth. I've pulled out the rug from the rest of your case. Here's a case in point. I'm refuting the very root of your argument, and there's no real need to address the rest of the argument because it's not even applicable. This isn't strawmanning at all. Strawmanning is what you do when you construct a somewhat similar but unrelated case and attack THAT instead of the actual case at hand, and imply that victory on your special case implies victory to the case at large.

The funny thing is that you say I don't answer your arguments, when those arguments are strawmen to begin with, that's what I point out, and then you continue to assert they are valid arguments.

Oftentimes scum will do that to avoid answering points they cannot answer, or to generate suspicion. For example, let's say I lay down a Martin Luther style 95 reasons to think someone is scum. You pick out reason 84, argue against it, and then go on to say my case is flawed. Maybe that specific reason is flawed, but it doesn't nullify the case in entirety.

Oh

MY

GOD!

Did you just use a strawman argument to prove your point? Yes. Yes you did.

I actually had to stifle laughter!

This is a strawman argument. This is a very solid example of a strawman argument. He creates the strawman (I am attacking one of his 95 reasons for thinking someone is scum) and says that because I disprove one of them, he still has 94 reasons someone is scum. This strawman argument is not related to our specific case. It works for his example, and he hopes to extend that logic to our specific case, where it does not work, instead of actually addressing a real point where I attack his case and it all falls apart because I've proven that it was a strawman argument to begin with.

Maybe I say something like "if Panzer is town, what would we gain from his lynch" as a challenge to people suggesting lynching for information is acceptable and you go on to extract "Panzer is town" and attribute it to my belief. At any rate, here are the examples I've given before:

a) Post 385. I mention that I don't understand which of two possible mindsets Birthday had. You cut it off and take my "I don't understand" out of context to imply that I don't understand the Birthday situation at large.

Yes, I'll admit my quote paraphrase takes it out of context in a bit of dirty fightin' to show you the irony in saying that you didn't understand where to fall on his case, and somehow trying to use that as fuel for suspicion. It was meant as an ironic jab, not a true slanderization, since I give town enough credit to understand where it came from. From my point of view, you didn't understand your own case on Birthday, and it was built on a misunderstanding.

That's a strawman.

No, that's not a strawman at all. In fact, there's no actual logical weight in my argument. That little bit does not serve as any basis for further logic, it's a standalone one-shot. Furthermore, even if your definition of strawman was valid, I don't use that to refuse answering any other part of your case.

You then proceed to dismiss my reasoning, saying that Birthday's large post would clear it up, which suggests that YOU were the one who didn't understand, considering the section you had just quoted above is in direct contradiction to that.

Apparently, yes, I was the one who didn't understand, good show. Now you're not even attacking it as a strawman argument anymore, it's suddenly some other, non-connected case, that you're trying to turn into a strawman argument against me.

Also, that's not what I remember saying.

Your case here is based on a faulty premise and faulty conclusions, but really, just reading over

Birthday's HUGE vote post

should clear this all up.

This was in reference to his vote on Panzer, where he uses GIEFF's logic, which apparently I had misread, according to BB's simulpost.

b) Post 480 - Post 482. In the first post I attack the idea that lynching Panzer is acceptable even if he is town. In that second post Zilla attacks me on the basis that I'm defending against a Panzer lynch because he could be town. Strawman. She rips out my example scenario and attacks it as my belief.

You're missing the point; your entire example hinges on knowing that Panzer is town to begin with. In order for your example to even hold any weight, we have to know that Panzer is town already. That's faulty logic, as we most reasonably suspect him of being scum if we are going to lynch him. That's also why it indicates you are operating from a scum mindset. Since WE don't know panzer's alignment, we can't even use the example you outline, and the only reason to propose such an example is if you know Panzer's alignment ahead of time.

Reread this post for an example.

I will admit that this is one of the weaker aspects of my case, not because I'm wrong about her strawmanning me, but because it's plausible that Zilla does this as town. However, at a certain point, the way she goes about doing it becomes scummy. I won't go into detail on that yet, I want to see how she responds to the above first.

It's weak because you don't understand what strawmanning really is, and you attempt to use it as a blanket term to describe my actions as scummy. However, when you go into specifics rather than sweeping generalizations, you can see where my points are entirely valid, and don't even qualify for your misused version of "strawman arguments."

4. Backtracking.

a) Post 396. This post can basically be summed up as, "I didn't bother looking into the validity of Goat's arguments enough to realize that he was actually correct about Birthday." I find this scummy, because she went out of her way to defend Birthday, and clearly did so without a full grasp of the situation. Why as town, would you stretch yourself to defend a player without truly understanding the extent of the case against him? I argue that she was doing this entirely to discredit my case for the purpose of throwing suspicion on me.

What are you even talking about? Not only is this pure conjecture, it's based on manufactured evidence. I still don't agree with your reasoning on Birthday. If Birthday hadn't made his own post that basically said despite your faulty logic, you had the right idea, I'd still believe Birthday to be town. Removing his own post, my post is an entirely valid defense, and I'm quite surprised that Birthday, scum or town, didn't have a similar explanation. You're basically trying to say that because I was shown to be wrong, I must be scum.

b) Post 459. I discussed this in Post 551. Her language use here is highly suspect. "I may have" or "perhaps it was just" or "this has aged well (what does that even mean?)." This doesn't express confidence or truthfulness at all. Either you did or you did not change your mind, there is no "may" about it. I think this is scummy. If she truly had a change of heart regarding the usefulness of the SK discussion, I doubt her post would read like an elaborate cover up. Again, I think she changed her mind because she needed more dirt on Mykonian, and here is where her slippery behavior caught up to her and she had to try to cover her butt.

"Has aged well" meaning that it has remained fairly clear in retrospect. Though we are entrenched in our own arguments here in the present, there's still valid information from that SK debate for later, particularly once we have more of an idea what roles are involved in this game. Even without that, I think there are some interesting things to note amongst the "stupid" comments. I think we can analyze

why

they are "stupid" and see some motives behind it. I still think that a lot of what was said was pointless at face value. However, I think it's something worth taking a deeper look into, looking at why people said the things they said, why Mykonian and Panzer pushed for an SK hunt and things of that sort.

Also, as I've explained, reading all of it in one go made the whole thing seem really trivial at the time, but my view on it has changed since the characters have grown more definite. When I first read it, I was still trying to figure out who was who. It's like going into a room full of people you don't know and someone tells you that a bunch of them have been fighting over an issue; you're in a unique perspective since you weren't a part of that original discussion, you have almost no actual investment in the issue they are debating, and you can't really tell one person from another right away. That's the problem I was having.

c) Post 471 she lists GIEFF as last on her suspect list with Dour. Now in Post 580 she states that GIEFF was originally one of her most pro-town players because she didn't want to distinguish his play from Dour? Apparently Zilla found Gieff to be one of her top two townies, and didn't even bother to look into his play to make that judgment.

It's not even that I didn't bother to distinguish him

from Dour

that they were both off in their own world, locked in struggle with each other, and hardly commenting on the rest of the game. They were perhaps the last people to come in with unique identities to me. You couldn't look at GIEFF without talking about his relationship with Dour, and vice versa. Since they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players, nor were they seeking easy targets, they seemed most likely to be town in a village full of people looking like scum.

You're preying on my replacement heuristics more than anything here.

5. Inconsistencies/Scummy behavior.

a) Defending BB without an understanding of my case against him. I gave 3 "off the cuff 1 liners" as my vote reasoning. She instantly attributed my case against him as poor for that reason (note above where she employs the same vote style to Mykonian), but yet she didn't even understand the extent of my case. She didn't know what his "suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon" was, yet rejected my case despite being in the dark there. When I did go into detail regarding that, she argued it was a bad case despite having a very incomplete understanding of the situation.

You refused to elaborate on Birthday for a solid 2 pages, and you pretty much flat out refused to build a case. While this wasn't my initial reason for voting you, that doesn't invalidate that argument. Yes, I didn't have all the facts and I was hitting the ground running on it, but, again, your stated reasons were weak. You're also trying to promote that I attacked them because they were 3 "off the cuff one-liners," when that was only part of my attack. My other points include that "lack of scumhunting" isn't anything to guarantee scum, and the "suspicious disengage" needed clarification. Even the "lack of solid stances" isn't a very solid scumtell in all.

Yet, you're saying my only problem with your case is the manner in which you present it. That only comes into play when I say you need to give him more to answer for.

b) This has been brought up before, but she was not voting or pursuing Birthday despite him being her top suspect. At post 387, she listed Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and myself at 20% in terms of suspicion. Later on, she notes that Birthday was at 75%, and that her suspicion level regarding Birthday had not changed from the time of that post.

I'm going to interrupt you here because this was already answered. Twice.
Actually three times.

Why then, was she not voting for, or pressuring Birthday whatsoever, despite him being her top suspect?

Again, he wasn't my top suspect.

Instead, she was pressuring me (20%)

Answered already.

and her pressure was because I linked to a post detailing my suspicion of Panzer, rather than retype it. Zilla didn't even bother to check that link, because she proceeded to argue against 240, not 295, the post that I had linked.

Oh my god, did you not read this post?

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. 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.

So rather than attack her top suspect, Birthday, she attacked me, over something entirely meaningless and a misrepresentation (post 240 rather than 295).

I believe this entire quote is completely refuted.

c) However, and I point this out very clearly in Post 554, Zilla then goes on to vote for BB, despite arguing that I was her top suspect over and over again with GIEFF, and despite the idea that BB is less likely to be scum if I am scum.

What, so now you know that you are my top suspect? Pick a side! Also, this was already addressed.

Furthermore, in a couple of places, she responds in a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do" manner, which is suspicious because GIEFF and myself are two players she linked as scum. Why would she ever want to do what her scum team said to do? For reference: Post 575 and Post 592. The first post is a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do post" and the 2nd is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and reflects her mindset of voting Birthday to avoid suspicion rather than because she legitimately believed him most likely to be scum. Again, why would she vote Birthday because the two people she paired as scum (myself, GIEFF) pressured her to do so? I will also note, that I told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.

I've explained my reasons for voting Birthday, you and GIEFF egging me on notwithstanding.

d) Deflection. She loves to defend against a strawman of my arguments or turn it around and attack me "instead" of defending against the point I make. I give 3 examples of deflection in Post 551, although there are more places she does this.

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.

That's not deflection at all, unless you can prove not only that your "vote stretching" isn't a form of tunnelling, but also that I thought there was a difference at the time I posted that, and that somehow my answer isn't valid when I say that's how I construct my cases, and urge you to check my meta.

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.

This isn't deflecting either. I'm saying you don't understand why I'm calling you aggressively defensive, and that I'm not in that category. Even if I were to concede that our defenses are the same, this still wouldn't be deflecting.

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.

This still isn't deflection, and, again, you're trying to say you weren't my top suspect, because some out-of-context answers to unquoted questions can be contrived to say that I thought you had a 20% chance of being scum based on your relationship with Panzer while I later thought that Birthday had a mutually independent chance of 75% to be scum.

=============

Good thing there is a preview button, here's more answering.

I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was

Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday

Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances

And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)

I did shoot down that other reasoning. It looks like GIEFF just provided the links to prove it.

Over to GIEFF:

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.

I don't believe he really does answer the accusation that he's not accountable in that post. He answers everything with *gasp* a deflection! (Go read the thread).

subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.

He makes some good points, but there's the whole debate on "reading without a summary" that I don't agree with; as if players providing a summary somehow control my perception of the thread; as if I have to believe anything anyone says to me.

I'd have thought that having a nice concise summary (much like has been asked of Goat) would make case building and evaluating much easier, and anyone who really believed they had any kind of case would be perfectly fine in making a summary. The only ones who would fear it are people who are voting either for dubious reasons or on intentionally mistaken logic. That's almost always the case, from my experience. This may be something we just don't agree on, but there's not a whole lot to be done about it.

[*]In Zilla's next post, she doesn't specifically address ANYTHING that either Goat or subgenius said. If Zilla really felt these reasons were valid, I feel she would have shown some disagreement, instead of just ignoring them. At the end of this post, she says:

That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

A new reason is presented, although the previous reasons were shown to be faulty (yet not addressed by Zilla). This is the "extending the case" accusation, in action. It is odd that you say NOBODY owns their case, yet present this as a reason for voting for Goat. Why not apply it to anybody else?

They didn't refuse so vehemently; he was the first and the loudest. I attributed part of the further sentiments as just echoing and an attempt not to stick out. I'm almost certain that if the first response was a posted summary, there wouldn't be anybody else reluctant to give one.

[*]mykonian says, again, that your vote of Goat makes no sense.

militant agrees that your initial reasons are bad, and calls your latest reason (the "case-extender") "laughable."

Beyond_Birthday also tells Zilla why he doesn't agree with her logic.


If I had 5 players telling me my reasons for voting somebody were ridiculous, I would either try to refute them, or drop the case. Zilla did neither.

[*]In Zilla's next post, instead of explaining why she thinks her previous 4 reasons really are valid, and why the 5 people telling her they are NOT valid are all wrong, she comes up two more reasons (e. "aggressively defensive" and f. "he just switched is vote for poor reasons").

Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

Again, this is Zilla extending her case. She presented some reasons when she initially voted Goat. These were shot down. She didn't respond to the fact that they were shot down, and simply threw out a new reason. This new reason was also shot down, and instead of responding, she threw out TWO MORE reasons. Double-case extension.

You're skipping the parts where I defend asking for a summary:

Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.

We've got a mannequin in class. Before we ask the instructor anything about our code, we have to explain what our problem is to the mannequin. This is because in the middle of explaining it, we will often realize our own mistake, saving the instructor time.

I'm trying that approach here, because honestly, I haven't seen a case I've liked so far, and also honestly, I don't have a good feel on anybody. Most games, everybody is at least somewhat town. This game, it seems like everyone and their brother are scum.

or where I explain my position on the "he has no votes" bit.

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case. I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an FOS.

[*]In Goat's next post, he resonds to all of Zilla's accusations.

And in Zilla's "long, boring post" is when the first accusations of misrepresentation start. Many of Zilla's responses to Goat in this post don't respond to what Goat is saying, but simply say "that is false and a misrepresentation" and ignore the point that was trying to be made.

Heh, when I looked back at Goat's post, I was about to answer it again with the same accusations, because they

are

inaccurate.

He claims I'm voting him for his bad vote on Macavity, when I'm voting him for refusing to re-justify it. His initial reasons for voting Macavity aren't too shabby, but he really hadn't been pursuing Macavity at all, and it seemed insincere. The logic is there, but the conviction is not. I guess I thought everybody else knew that and didn't buy his take on it.

I'm reading those posts, and I can't see where I give the impression of not answering his points aside from the misunderstanding about my reasons for voting him. I continued on to explain that I was voting him because he refused to be accountable, which was scummy.

I didn't notice Zilla doing this until she did it to me, but reading back carefully now, it is as clear as day. And from that point forward, the back-and-forth between Goat and Zilla deteriorated into a he-said, she-said morass of quotes, misrepresentations, attacks, emotions, and unreadable wall-o-texts (which just means a big wall of text, i.e. a very long post).

Well, I hope I managed to suffice with my answer to Goat's case.

Back on Goat's point.

My initial case on BB was not weak. You still have not suggested in any way how three one line statements makes a case weak (and if you do actually believe this, your case on Mykonian would be similarly "weak"). I also have not extended my Birthday case, at all. Where have I done so? You really love to make accusations without any underlying backup.

Initially, the case was because he had demonstrated "a lack of scumhunting, a suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon, and a lack of solid stances." You refused to clarify the case for a while, then it grew to include parroting GIEFF's reasons for voting Panzer, not actually wanting to lynch Panzer despite saying you should only vote for someone you want to lynch, and, if you count count me including your manner of defense, Birthday's manner of defense.

I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.

I was joining a growing bandwagon on Birthday? Really? Mykonian was the only other vote. I championed the wagon entirely. Pulled reasons out of thin air? Damn, I must be a skilled magician, because Birthday agreed with my reasoning.

Ah, I just skimmed and saw Mykonian vote twice and thought it was two different people, and that there had been growing speculation on BB when I joined. As for the pulling reasons out of thin air, BB agreed with your much later justification of them, and I don't mean to imply they were totally baseless, but had a very marginal base to begin with. They seem like you didn't actually have a real case, and calling someone a wishy-washy non-scum-hunter with a "suspicious" disengage seems like something that doesn't take too much effort to build against somebody.

You need to make the rest of your post clearer. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes from, or what you're trying to even argue.

eh wot? you need to make your demand for clarification clearer, I have no idea which quotes you aren't sure about.

I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.

First of all, I mentioned that I was busy. Second of all, you didn't address anything even close to resembling my case on you. You pulled out random posts with stuff you wanted me to address or stuff I didn't address. If you wanted to address my case on you as found within the thread, you would have answered post 551 and 554. What you did here is essentially strawmanning. You pulled random quotes from god knows where and said "Goat didn't back this up, or goat hasn't qualified this, or Goat didn't address my complaint of him" and then argued against those specific points, essentially concluding my entire case is flawed, despite the fact that you haven't addressed the meat of my case at all. Fancy footwork there.

I think I must have missed most of 551/554 somehow, that was during a really busy time when I was on between classes and had lots of projects due. If it's really necessary, I'll go back and answer that monster as well.

[Zilla]

And, I just spent the better part of two hours on that post, so you'd better read it!

I'll be pretty peeved if I have to quote anything out of there again.

[Goatrevolt]

I read it. You have an inaccurate representation of literally everything that has taken place throughout the entire game. You misrepresent me every step of the way, from taking my martin luther

example

out of context, to continuing to misrepresent my

example

of why lynching for information is not good.

Zilla, I'm curious. In other games, do people complain about you misrepresenting them frequently? You have an extremely distorted view of the game, and I simply do not see you as a townie possibly being this off-kilter. You don't strike me as someone who is incapable of understanding example scenarios and the like, yet you continually are unable to do so.

I simply do not see how a townie could possibly come to some of those conclusions. For example, check out this quote in regards to GIEFF:

It's not even that I didn't bother to distinguish him from Dour that they were both off in their own world, locked in struggle with each other, and

hardly commenting on the rest of the game

. They were perhaps the last people to come in with unique identities to me. You couldn't look at GIEFF without talking about his relationship with Dour, and vice versa.

Since they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players

, nor were they seeking easy targets, they seemed most likely to be town in a village full of people looking like scum.

Bolded emphasis mine. She states that she had GIEFF and Dour as town because they were locked in a debate with each other and didn't have outstanding stances. Um...GIEFF was championing the Panzer wagon really hard, and had plenty of stances within the thread. I simply do not see how town-Zilla could ever say something like this, which is obviously false. I can see scum-Zilla saying it if she's trying to justify a change in stance regarding GIEFF that she otherwise has no real reason for.

This isn't even mentioning the idea that one of her reasons for voting Mykonian was because he was "non-committal" and one of her reasons for voting me was based on some idea that I had been floating through the thread and didn't have solid stances. She agreed with my point that BB had not taken solid stances and that it was the only valid point of my case against him. However, apparently in the case of GIEFF and Dour, not having outstanding stances on other players puts them at the spot of the top two townies.

Finally, look at the post she links to. Within that very post, this is what she says about GIEFF:

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Then compare that with her statement above that GIEFF and dour were locked in a struggle with each other and hardly commenting on the rest of the game.

Contradiction ahoy. Zilla is scum.

[mykonian]

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

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

I definitely want to see a claim before we lynch somebody. I don't want to see a claim because I would rather lynch B_B, as I have said numerous times. I find it hard to believe you are really so confused as to think I want to lynch Zilla without a claim. As I JUST said, it looks like Zilla will be the lynch today, so that even though I am personally against a Zilla-claim, she should do so.

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

This is the second time you have been SO convinced I am scum that you have called the target of my aggression townie. You've done it with Panzer, and now you've done it with Zilla. I think these are slips by scum, revealing more than you should, but you have claimed that you only called them townie because you are so certain I am scum.

It is again a way of speach: you don't really want a claim, that's why I think you scum, and then I make that colored sentence, questioning your motivations.

If you were SO sure I'm scum that you are making nested assumptions on other players' alignments based on your assumption that I am scum, you would be voting me, and trying to make a case on me to get others to do so, too.

This is strawmanning. Calling someone scum casually doesn't mean he is absolutely so. I called you that way to express my thoughts about that action.

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

"WAS" being the operative word, considering your switch to springlullaby.

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

[Beyond_Birthday]

Gieff, you asked me a single question in that entire post. You responded to my post, yes. But pose your own questions? meh...not really. But, since you apparently overlooked it before from post 548. And again, your very next post said ONLY an unvote, vote zilla. That's it. Nothing else. No original reasoning. Your last post 543 was, admittedly, just before Zilla's switching her vote, but you, the "big" poster, didn't mention that this was the specific reason in your voting post? My only assumption is that you agreed with the following. If this is true, how did my lynch suddenly become better? You EVEN say that I don't need to claim, so I just don't see your big push for my lynch being better until recently.

HOWEVER, my biggest problem is this: Why the hell has Zilla not claimed yet?

*Refusing to see Goat's point
*Presenting nitpicked arguments.

*Defending a townie (who is clearly scummy looking with true reasoning. However, only scum KNOW who is town) until the town's own argument proves this=false, thus ruining her claim to protecting the innocent for Day 2.

*Having a poor defense of myself Day 1 that ignores facts.

*For being generally scummy in her play.

*For refusing to take a stance on me for a majority of the day and only proceeds to attack me when pressed hard for it.

*Ignores, without acknowledging, Gieff's request policy to not vote me yet and use a "HOS" as to not risk a mis, quicklynch. I just feel that the complete refusal or acknowledgment is scummy. (Just to clarify)

*Refuses to claim despite her demands being met.

[springlullaby]

Goat, a question. Why are you against policy lynching me in this game?

Not that I would want to be policy lynched, but in the other game we share, you gave me a fair amount of flake because of 'lurking' and stated that you'd see me hanged for it, but not here. What gives?

[Goatrevolt]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the contradiction I pointed out in my recent post?

Goat, a question. Why are you against policy lynching me in this game?

Not that I would want to be policy lynched, but in the other game we share, you gave me a fair amount of

flake

because of 'lurking' and stated that you'd see me hanged for it, but not here. What gives?

I addressed that in this post. I think Zilla is scum. If she is scum, I think that makes you more likely to be town based on your early Dejkha pressure. Besides, I would never advocate a policy lynch over someone I strongly feel to be scum.

Also, I laughed at your freudian slip bolded above.

[mykonian]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

because there seems to be a majority for her lynch. And I would like a claim

before

the lynch...

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the contradiction I pointed out in my recent post?

not impressed. GIEFF nitpick against his "targets", goes way too far, and then you get accusations that he is tunneling, as his behaviour against someone doesn't make sense. I think that explains the contradiction partly.

On the other hand, to lie as scum that way makes little more sense then it does as town, isn't it?

[GIEFF]

Here is a summary of how the Zilla-Goat clash began:

1. Zilla votes Goat for saying that Zilla pushing for information is not good.
   
   mykonian says that doesn't make sense, and Zilla says that a) Goat has no votes, b) she doesn't like his attitude, and c) he needs to explain his vote on MacavityLock.
   
   
2. Goat shoots down a, b, and c. I agree with everything Goat says in this post.

I don't believe he really does answer the accusation that he's not accountable in that post. He answers everything with *gasp* a deflection! (Go read the thread).

Why should Goat talk about being accountable in this post, when it is 20 posts before you first mention the word? If you were reading back with truth as your objective (as opposed to making Goat look scummy as your objective), you would not have made a mistake this obvious.

subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.

He makes some good points, but there's the whole debate on "reading without a summary" that I don't agree with; as if players providing a summary somehow control my perception of the thread; as if I have to believe anything anyone says to me.

This is typical of your behavior throughout the thread. You say "he makes some good points, but..." and then focus on one point only. The other points are extremely valid, and you IGNORED them, instead making up new reasons to justify your Goat-vote.

And if you didn't agree with that point, why didn't you respond?

You can't just ignore points that demonstrate flaws in your reasoning. You must either refute them, or revise your opinion.

Failing to do either of these two things is anti-town, and it is behavior you have shown repeatedly throughout the thread.

He claims I'm voting him for his bad vote on Macavity, when I'm voting him for refusing to re-justify it.

But this again is you focusing un-necessarily on Goat. Had you chosen to initially attack someone else, and then ask them to revise a previous case, you would have likely been met with a similar response: "go read the thread." You focus unnaturally on Goat.

Possible scum-motivation: confuse the town with long posts, avoid having to take stances on a lot of players.

Possible town-motivation: you were really upset that people didn't like your ideas, so you attacked the first of them, and let your emotions get the better of you.


Either way, it is bad play, yet I find it difficult to believe a townie would focus so unnaturally on one player, even after I tried to warn you LONG ago that your incessant attention on Goat was anti-town, and would not lead to a lynch.


----------

Finally, look at the post she links to. Within that very post, this is what she says about GIEFF:

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Then compare that with her statement above that GIEFF and dour were locked in a struggle with each other and hardly commenting on the rest of the game.

Contradiction ahoy. Zilla is scum.

misrepresentation++ (oh look, I found some extra +'s lying around!)

In the quoted post, Zilla wasn't saying she believed that about me, she was demonstrating the fact that a case could be made about every player in the game.

It looks to me like you misrepresented that post on purpose, Goat. Reading it in context makes it pretty clear what Zilla was trying to do.

She even says at the end of that post:

This is not my standing on everyone

, but an exercise to see where cases "can" be built, to show that scum don't even have to actively push for a lynch as long as a townie gets

the wrong idea

about someone.

(Emphasis mine)

-----

My only assumption is that you agreed with the following. If this is true, how did my lynch suddenly become better? You EVEN say that I don't need to claim, so I just don't see your big push for my lynch being better until recently.

Your assumption is incorrect, as I have already stated. Your "case" had absolutely nothing to do with my vote for Zilla. I have later explained the reasoning behind my Zilla-vote, and I should have at the time.

You're right; you don't see the big push for your lynch being better until recently, because the problems with Zilla's lynch (that I outline in post 681) didn't arise (or I didn't notice them) until recently.

Respond to Post 735, and Post 690, and acknowledge that you have read Post 681.

I also realized that the following quote by you should be seen as a threat. It is informing me that if I successfully de-rail the Zilla wagon, then your vote will be on me. Or am I reading it wrong?

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

------

Panzer, it is time to end your Zilla-claim post-strike. Zilla is at L-4 now. Find another excuse if you want to lurk.

[joke]Tell you what: I am going on a post-strike until Panzer ends his post-strike. No posts from me until Panzer posts.[/joke]

----

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

As I just told your good buddy Panzer, Zilla is at L-4.

It is again a way of speach: you don't really want a claim, that's why I think you scum, and then I make that colored sentence, questioning your motivations.

That is ridiculous. I DO want a claim from Zilla, but ONLY if we are going to lynch her. This is not a difficult point to understand. I don't want to lynch her, and once she claims, lynching another person is bad for the town, as it may unnecessarily reveal power roles to the scum.

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

Here is some context for you.

Post 352.

Panzer's towniness is now only implied by you being scum.

Post 727

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

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies.

There. Those are the two times you've done the same thing. You called a player a townie, I called you on it, and your excuse was that you were only calling the player townie because you were so sure I was scum.

Does anybody buy that mykonian can be so sure? Would anybody else do the same? i.e. be sure enough that someone you are attacking is scum that you assume everybody that person attacks is town? What if you had said something like this:

Post 582

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when

I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

So even though I am SO SCUMMY that you are making nested assumptions about who is town, you would no lynch me based on the evidence? Something isn't right here. Which is it? Am I so un-scummy that you would prefer to no-lynch me, or am I so scummy that you are sure about the alignment of Zilla and Panzer because I am attacking them?

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

Oh, you CAN make a case on me, can you? Go for it. You've voted me for reasons you later claimed you were convinced I had answered to your satisfaction, but then you had to make up completely new reasons to vote me again. I'd love to see you try to sort all that out, while remaining somewhat consistent.

What I'd

really

love is for you to vote B_B, but I am realistic in my wishes. If you make such a horribly flawed and inconsistent attempt to make me look scummy that you reveal yourself as scum, then that is just as good.

[GIEFF]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

because there seems to be a majority for her lynch. And I would like a claim

before

the lynch...

Wow. This is ridiculous. Zilla is at L-4. Or did you miss that?

not impressed. GIEFF nitpick against his "targets", goes way too far, and then you get accusations that he is tunneling, as his behaviour against someone doesn't make sense. I think that explains the contradiction partly.

As a very scummy poster recently asked me; please provide context. I will not stand for false generalities. Again, if you don't understand my behavior, I'd be happy to explain it to you, but as you've shown in the past, you are a lot more willing to write off your confusion to me being scummy than to your inability to understand my points.

[mykonian]

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

As I just told your good buddy Panzer, Zilla is at L-4.

sorry, I thought we were close already, with two votes still waiting (there was a post about that I thought)

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

Here is some context for you.

Post 352.

Panzer's towniness is now only implied by you being scum.

Post 727

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

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies.

There. Those are the two times you've done the same thing. You called a player a townie, I called you on it, and your excuse was that you were only calling the player townie because you were so sure I was scum.

based on the assumption that you are scum, they should be town. There is someone that accuses, and someone that defends, and I didn't like those accusations. They looked scummy to me.

Does anybody buy that mykonian can be so sure? Would anybody else do the same? i.e. be sure enough that someone you are attacking is scum that you assume everybody that person attacks is town? What if you had said something like this:

Post 582

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when

I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

So even though I am SO SCUMMY that you are making nested assumptions about who is town, you would no lynch me based on the evidence? Something isn't right here. Which is it? Am I so un-scummy that you would prefer to no-lynch me, or am I so scummy that you are sure about the alignment of Zilla and Panzer because I am attacking them?

that quote tells my stance on the cases there: I think them weak. Normally I wouldn't lynch on that (the "no lynch" was a typo, the it should be "not lynch". Sentence runs a bit better then too. Funny, you are the first that misrepresents that )

and are you seriously telling everyone that I am so sure of something? LOL! I simply make, based on assumptions I mention (you are scum). Last time I heard you it was good to call someone scum, bad to call someone town. Suddenly it can go this way around too. GIEFF needed something to attack me...

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

Oh, you CAN make a case on me, can you? Go for it.

NO, I've already shown what points in that case are scummy, but I have also expressed the belief that those kinds of cases don't work.

[Goatrevolt]

Finally, look at the post she links to. Within that very post, this is what she says about GIEFF:

GIEFF has been tunneling on Panzer for a while now and has some questionable logic.

Then compare that with her statement above that GIEFF and dour were locked in a struggle with each other and hardly commenting on the rest of the game.

Contradiction ahoy. Zilla is scum.

misrepresentation++ (oh look, I found some extra +'s lying around!)

In the quoted post, Zilla wasn't saying she believed that about me, she was demonstrating the fact that a case could be made about every player in the game.

It looks to me like you misrepresented that post on purpose, Goat. Reading it in context makes it pretty clear what Zilla was trying to do.

She even says at the end of that post:

This is not my standing on everyone

, but an exercise to see where cases "can" be built, to show that scum don't even have to actively push for a lynch as long as a townie gets

the wrong idea

about someone.

(Emphasis mine)

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm not saying that Zilla thought you were scummy in that post. I know the point of that post was to provide possible reasons she could attack anyone. I'm saying that she shows knowledge in that post that you have attacked other players throughout the game, rather than just Dour. This becomes relevant, because her stated reasoning for finding you town was that you focused only on Dour and didn't have stances on the rest of the game. That post shows that she is lying, because she shows knowledge that you have been attacking Panzer, and thus have other stances than just Dour.

To clarify. Zilla said that she listed you as town because you were focusing only on Dour. In that post, she expresses knowledge that you have not been only focusing on Dour, which means that her stated reason for finding you town (no stances on other players) is a lie.