Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

/confirm... and such.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote: DraketheFake

He even admits to being a fake in his name, which means he's lying about his real self. Liars are a detriment to the town, therefore we lynch them to help the town.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

please list all the reasons why you already assume that i'm scum.

1. I'm voting for you, and I do not vote for town players, therefore since I am voting for you you must be scum.
2. You said that your favorite animal was a cow, whereas in this game all of the (pro-town) players are penguins, therefore admitting that your favorite animal is not within the realm of possibility for a townie is tantamount to anti-town behavior.
3. I don't like your face.
4. Or your shoes.

Open and shut, ladies and gentlepenguins.

I remain unconvinced.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You're all forgetting one key piece of the penguin puzzle.

It looks like you wrote down swear words in my name, why do you hate me Nuwen?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unvote

Vote: ZEEnon

Let's not be too hasty about this though, but I'm with Nuwen that ZEE's aneurysm about random votes is crazy suspicious. Especially when it happened he was sitting at L-4 at the time, well outside the range of a reasonable scum bandwagon, so let's see how he reacts at L-2 when the pressure is real and not just imagined.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unvote

Vote: ZEEnon

Let's not be too hasty about this though, but I'm with Nuwen that ZEE's aneurysm about random votes is crazy suspicious. Especially when it happened he was sitting at L-4 at the time, well outside the range of a reasonable scum bandwagon,

so let's see how he reacts at L-2 when the pressure is real and not just imagined.

This is a

textbook[/b] scum-hop. Like, I think I may have read this exact post elsewhere. ZEE's "aneurysm" about random votes is not "crazy" suspicious; it's at most mildly suspicious, and in the case where the target becomes hyper defensive and starts posting blocks of text I think it's probably more likely a flustered townie. The part I bolded is particularly troublesome, because it implies some illusory connection between the way someone acts under pressure and the number of votes they have on them. You already know how ZEEnon is going to react under pressure: he flipped out when there were three obvious joke votes and almost gave up on the game. If you find it suspicious, you find it suspicious, but your referendum about how it's a "pressure vote" combined with your comically overblown emotional language make it far more likely to me that you're scum that ZEEnon is.

Unvote, Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

(Even if most penguins are quite dashing.)

No, it's pretty damn suspicious; it might not be right, it might not even be a scumtell, but it is crazy suspicious whichever way it pans out.

To an extent I agree with you, I've seen plenty of terrible play and so far it's universaly been terrible town play. The three or four times I've seen the "resignation to death" type lines it's been by newbtown (though it should be noted this post of ZEE's comes after my vote and thus didn't influence my opinion). Of course then he immediatly renigs on his surrender and post a big wall o' text.

In this wall o' text he evidences a bizarre contempt for the RVS and then uses Nuwen's simple picture of where the random votes were placed as some sort of compelling evidence against her. Hint: It's not. Furthermore, his attempt to draw tenous links between scum partners at this stage of the game is hilarious because there's no where near enough evidence to do such a thing.

And finally, you're thinking far too linearly. Sure it puts more pressure on ZEE, but it also puts more pressure on the rest of the town.

If

we lynch ZEE and

if

he flips scum then perhaps someone flying in on his behalf is a scum partner;

if

he flips town then the people finishing off the wagon need a longer look. Votes are the most useful tool the town has and we shouldn't be afraid to use them.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Furthermore, I agree with freeko about DtF's slip bits.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD's post smacks of trying to strike while the iron's hot, and his shift from "This is suspicious" to "Nevermind this is really a pressure vote" is bullshit.

So now you're flat out lying because there was no shift. Let's take a look at what I said in that first post...

Let's not be too hasty about this though, but I'm with Nuwen that

ZEE's aneurysm about random votes is crazy suspicious.

Especially when it happened he was sitting at L-4 at the time, well outside the range of a reasonable scum bandwagon,

so let's see how he reacts at L-2 when the pressure is real and not just imagined.

All in a single post, hence no shift, hence you're lying or at least willfully misrepresenting my position. Liars deserve special attention.

I've seen plenty of terrible play and so far it's universally been terrible town play.

Glass houses etc.

1) Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
2) I'm indicting someone for terrible play.
3) Drake is therefore insinuating my play is terrible.
4) Via my syllogism which he quoted to use

accepting it as fact

because otherwise his jab doesn’t work; terrible play is town play.
5) Therefore I am town.

Thanks for clearing me, Drake. A bit odd that you're voting for a player you just helped prove town though.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I also disagree with DDD's analysis of the rest of the towns play. Criticizing us for bad play in the RVS when I found it to be very clearly extremely hilarious. As long as we don't lynch somebody in the RVS, most play there (here, though we're moving .. on UP! To the East side! I've finally got... sorry, it's a catchy tune ) can't be critiqued as bad.

I never criticized the town for bad RVS play... I quite enjoyed this town's RVS phase. I'm not sure where you're getting this from...

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

All in a single post, hence no shift, hence you're lying or at least willfully misrepresenting my position. Liars deserve special attention.

You're, uh, pretty dense if you think a shift within a single post isn't possible. You led with a legitimate reason and closed on an illegitimate one, giving greater credence to the second reason.

Shift in this context means change, as in my argument changed from A to B. However, it's plainly obvious that my argument has not changed from one to another, that I've made both points and stood behind both of them. Maybe you think I placed emphasis on the wrong argument, but my arguments did not shift as you continue to claim.

A bit odd that you're voting for a player you just helped prove town though.

Pot kettle etc.

(I knew I should have gone with "Those who live in scum houses." Jerk.)

Still haven't refuted my contentions there.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I've seen plenty of terrible play

and so far

it's universally been terrible town play.

If you miss the word order of those three words, you might come away with "I've seen plenty of terrible town

play so far

and it's universally etc." Which changes the whole meaning to a jab at the town. My glass houses comment is humbly with drawn.

(You're still scum.)

I see now, my statement was a comment from watching and playing in several other games where really terrible play was basically a town-tell and not at all an indictment of this game other than ZEE's play.

(You're still wrong.)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Another footnote that was made was the post right below mine. Again, its most likely circular logic, but something reeks about this post. I never like it when anyone does it, to anyones posts. For me its one of the greatest scumtells in the game. The offer up exactly 0 relevant content while avoiding a prod for lurking/inactivity and also fail to heap any immediate suspicion on themselves. I have seen this play in games before and that player has always been a scum.

Considering all the posting I've done today this doesn't exactly look like an accurate criticism at this point when you look at the whole of the game instead of focusing on a single data point.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

EBWOP: What kind of idiot screws up quote tags. (See below for same post as above, this time with proper tags).

Another footnote that was made was the post right below mine. Again, its most likely circular logic, but something reeks about this post. I never like it when anyone does it, to anyones posts. For me its one of the greatest scumtells in the game. The offer up exactly 0 relevant content while avoiding a prod for lurking/inactivity and also fail to heap any immediate suspicion on themselves. I have seen this play in games before and that player has always been a scum.

Considering all the posting I've done today this doesn't exactly look like an accurate criticism at this point when you look at the whole of the game instead of focusing on a single data point.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

1) Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
2) I'm indicting someone for terrible play.
3) Drake is therefore insinuating my play is terrible.
4) Via my syllogism which he quoted to use accepting it as fact because otherwise his jab doesn't work; terrible play is town play.
5) Therefore I am town.

Careful with linear logic, kids. Drake's comment snarkily called your play terrible and did nothing to prove your generalization that terrible play equals a terrible

town

player. This is an inverted strawman - you're attempting to prove the statement "I'm terrible, I'm town" after assuming "terrible play -> universally been terrible town play" is an axiom. The only truism here is "terrible play equals terrible play." Hinging DDD's statement on "so far" deconstructs the statement's endurance even further in practice - if terrible play is qualified as town-only play 'thus far,' WIFOM is established for any future terrible play. Great door to create.

I don't like this contrived attempt to prove alignment.

I agree (there's that terrible scumtell again, freeko). It was utterly contrived because it was merely a way to throw Drake's

insult

back at him. I contend my play isn't terrible and thus the whole syllogism is a moot point anyways.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I was going to take your whole post apart, but I got to one part and it's just baffling enough that I need to draw sole attention to it. See my response to Nuwen about my innocence "proof".

Though i do see how the single data point comes into play, I think you made the mistake that I used only your response to my post as the single data point.

I used you as a whole as the single data point.

Not just your response to the post I made.

I was unhappy with your play up to that point and you were suspicious to me

Wait, what? Did my play in the RVS offend you or something because we had maybe 20 serious posts before your post that I agreed with and a third of them were by ZEEnon. I'm just utterly baffled by that statement and I'd love to hear you try and justify it because it just reeks of manufacturing evidence. I'd also like other people to chime in on this one because I think this could be big.

Do I cause your death? Just like you caused Erin's?!

ZEEnon - 4 (Nuwen, Mizz.Mafia, Light-kun, Debonair Danny DiPietro)
Nuwen - 1 (ZEEnon)
Fishythefish - 2 (JereIC, pacman281292)
DraketheFake - 1 (na85)
na85 - 1 (Fishythefish)
Debonair Danny DiPietro - 2 (DraketheFake, freeko)

Not Voting - Amished

12 alive, 7 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 128)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Wouldnt a better play have been to just ignore it?

I agree. Cute logic battles are fun, but shouldn't take precedence over actual scum-hunting. If you're retorting simply to retort, you're at best creating spurious fluff that convolutes the game and detracts attention away from actual tells. Worse still, this distraction can be interpreted as an anti-town attempt to disrupt focus.

Conceded and apologies to the town for the distracting post in that case. However I'd like to remind the town that mine was the response to an equally distracting and useless insult from Drake. I'd hate for him not to get his credit for his part in this fiasco.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I'd also like other people to chime in on this one because I think this could be big.

Make your own case, friend-o.

Will do, or at least pose some direct questions.

In everyone's opinion is it reasonable (excluding a ZEEnon level meltdown) that you can be unhappy with someone's play twelve hours into the serious part of the game? I contend it is not reasonable at all.

Furthermore, the very act of claiming to be unhappy with my entire play (all one post in twelve hours of serious play) and suspicious of it suggests he knows that the single data point of the post where I agreed with him is not significant on it's own.

So there's one of two options that I see, 1) he's being honest, but entirely unreasonable in his opinions or 2) he's being dishonest and simply pushing for a town lynch. Either way his actions are anti-town. My vote stays on ZEEnon till he shows up again so I can get a better read, but freeko heads up the rest of the top of my current scum list.

***This is the section where I banter in a witty fashion with Drake in an unserious manner. Do not be alarmed good citizens.***

But but but what about witty reparteeeeeeeee?

I, for one, appreciated DDD's efforts to clear himself using silly logic, which is kind of my thing. If I hadn't misread it I'd have been even more totally fine with. I'm a little dismayed he didn't find a way to turn my follow-up pot calling the kettle black aphorism against me.

At least someone understood, even if it's the idiot still voting for me. Furthermore, it would've been redundant to go through the same proof with another cliche (not that I didn't briefly consider it).

And finally DtF is me. Or, rather, the acronym you get when you separate the first letters of the 3 words of my username (

D

rake

t

he

F

ake). You'll find that players often do this to save time on typing, or, in Danny's case, to remind themselves of large breasts.

Ironic, coming from the guy whose acronym stands for

D

own

t

o

F

uck. He's just here trolling for sex, considering there are minors on this site he's probably a pedo. Being a pedo is a scumtell, lynch him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

So there's one of two options that I see, 1) he's being honest, but entirely unreasonable in his opinions or 2) he's being dishonest and simply pushing for a town lynch. Either way his actions are anti-town. My vote stays on ZEEnon till he shows up again so I can get a better read, but freeko heads up the rest of the top of my current scum list.

I think there's probably option 1.5) He overstated his case in agreeing with somebody else's suspicions in an attempt to look like he was adding content and not merely hopping onto a bandwagon. Which I'm not giving my full blessing by any means, but I think there's at least a reasonable chance that that is townie behavior.

But isn't that damning to a degree in and of itself. It's poor argumentation as he's stretching his case to fit his preconcieved opinions instead of letting the facts guide him to a conclusion. And your speculation about his motivation is even more so, he wanted to appear to be adding content instead of simply hopping on a wagon. Shouldn't he be more concerned about truth than how he appears to the rest of us? It may not be a scum-tell, but it seems like anti-town behavior to me and it sure as hell is suspicious.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Fishy, what you are doing is a CONTRIVED attack. You present nothing to substantiate your claim. Whereas I use the blatant buddying and circular logic DDD was using to "defend" himself from DtF.

freeko it seems you're the only one who still isn't getting this. Both Drake and Fishy realize the circular logic was a joke initially. Nuwen and Amished both took a look at the post and while they questioned it initially they both appear to realize that it was an ultimately useless joke post and I have apologized for not making that clearer.

Your buddying claim is equally ridiculous because of how fast you used the argument. You have a single post where I agreed with you, a single post is not enough time to establish a definitive trend of any kind. If I drew a quarter from a bag of coins would you instantly assume that all the coins in the bag were quarters? No, you would draw more coins and look for a trend, maybe after drawing four or five coins you could make an educated guess about the nature of the contents of the bag. Unfortunately, what you have here is a single quarter, not enough to make a worthwhile prediction.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD: Personally I'm not a fan of listing other people's options like that (with regards to you talking about freeko pushing a case on you. There are always more options than anyone lists, so just giving something that's not complete, and obviously biased to your point of view is neither helpful nor townie, in my eyes. Wait and let them hang themselves with their response if it's that bad natured, and make your case then. This way we're arguing over other points too, without his input, while also giving him ideas as to how to answer/not answer.

Theory disagreement then. Of course my options are biased to my viewpoint, those are the options I see. I think it's a positive that I open it up for discussion though. I don't want to become entrenched in any one mindset, I want to explore what other options people see and yes, I even want to give freeko a chance to defend himself and prove me wrong. All in all I'm not interested in building a case, I'm interested in the truth.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I'm going to ignore freeko's post because he's repeating the same old tired lines that I've already refuted and he hasn't even bothered to deal with those refutations.

In everyone's opinion is it reasonable (excluding a ZEEnon level meltdown) that you can be unhappy with someone's play twelve hours into the serious part of the game? I contend it is not reasonable at all.

Furthermore, the very act of claiming to be unhappy with my entire play (all one post in twelve hours of serious play) and suspicious of it suggests he knows that the single data point of the post where I agreed with him is not significant on it's own.

So there's one of two options that I see, 1) he's being honest, but entirely unreasonable in his opinions or 2) he's being dishonest and simply pushing for a town lynch. Either way his actions are anti-town. My vote stays on ZEEnon till he shows up again so I can get a better read, but freeko heads up the rest of the top of my current scum list.

So let me get this straight. Freeko thinks your play is bad, so that makes him scummy?

No, when I'm unhappy with someone's play they're either lurking way too much or have quit on a game or they're behaving in a blatently anti-town fashion. I'm never unhappy when people post content even if they're wrong about the content, so freeko's post seems like a stretch to me.

Sorry bud, I have to disagree on this one and while I don't think freeko has been acting particularly pro-town, I do think you're making a big deal out of nothing (much like you did earlier when you hopped on the ZEEnon bandwagon "crazy suspicious" etc.)

Perhaps in the quoted dialogue I'm focused too much on his word choice of the phrase "unhappy" because that expression doesn't make much sense to me in the context I would use it. More so, it was an attempt to get people to go back and look at my play and see if it warranted the tunnelvision freeko has acquired for it because I felt freeko's reaction was extreme.

I also like the subtle implication that lynching you would be a town lynch.

That's because it would be.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, when I'm unhappy with someone's play they're either lurking way too much or have quit on a game or they're behaving in a blatently anti-town fashion. I'm never unhappy when people post content even if they're wrong about the content, so freeko's post seems like a stretch to me.

How is that different than what I said?

He's unhappy with your play, so you think it's a stretch and therefore he's scummy.

I'm asking you if that's the case (although I think you just confirmed it)

Circles, it feels like we're going around in them.

1) He claimed to be unhappy with the entirety of my play at that point.
2) The entirety of my play at that point was one serious post.
3) I find this to be an unreasonable position for freeko to hold.
4) Hence in my view he was being either unreaonable about #2 or dishonest about #1, which are both anti-town actions.
5) Coupled with later actions and posts I believe freeko the second most likely of anyone to be scum behind ZEEnon.

1 and 2 are facts, if 3 is true then 4 logically follows and I'm willing to extend to 5. If 3 is false then 4 is false and errodes some support for 5.

I believe 3 to be true, I believe that if someone were to look back at the first pages of the game and look at my serious post they could agree or disagree with the post, but they wouldn't have reasonable, rational grounds to be unhappy with my play up to that point.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

EBWOP: 1 and 2 are facts, if 3 is true then 4 logically follows and I'm willing to extend to 5. If 3 is false then 4 is not the binary option I present it as and errodes some support for 5.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Personally, the ... interesting .... acronym that DDD posted of DtF's name gave me some insight, not sure if it'll help his case or hurt it down the road.

If this doesn't come out during the game you absolutely need to tell me what kind of read you got from this after the game is over. I simply have no idea how you guys get alleged reads off some of the things you do.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I don't owe you anything, LK. Not that I actually thought there was anything worth responding to here, but if you insist on asking for my thoughts then I'll give them.

And finally, you're thinking far too linearly. Sure it puts more pressure on ZEE, but it also puts more pressure on the rest of the town.

If

we lynch ZEE and

if

he flips scum then perhaps someone flying in on his behalf is a scum partner;

if

he flips town then the people finishing off the wagon need a longer look. Votes are the most useful tool the town has and we shouldn't be afraid to use them.

False.

Danny, if a person flips town, especially on day one, the people voting that person from the random voting stage, without validating their reasons for keeping their votes on, and the fourth or fifth vote* are most likely to contain mafia. The hammer is only suspect if it appears to exist solely for the purpose of ending day or if it come unprovoked or against the request made by the town or a player to not hammer yet.

* See Jeep's (I think it's his) article on finding mafia.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this; who needs to be analyzed depends on the context of the situation. However, I think making a blanket statement like "4th or 5th people in a vote string are most likely to be scum" and then using it in actual game analysis is a terrible idea. It tells scum how to act to avoid suspicion, don't be the 4th or 5th vote.

If a lynchee flips town then the people who need to be analyzed on the wagon are any RVS voters who didn't confirm their vote with valid reasoning, anyone else who appears to simply be jumping on a wagon with sub-standard logic, and dubious hammers.

Wouldnt a better play have been to just ignore it?

I agree. Cute logic battles are fun, but shouldn't take precedence over actual scum-hunting. If you're retorting simply to retort, you're at best creating spurious fluff that convolutes the game and detracts attention away from actual tells. Worse still, this distraction can be interpreted as an anti-town attempt to disrupt focus.

Conceded and apologies to the town for the distracting post in that case. However I'd like to remind the town that mine was the response to an equally distracting and useless insult from Drake. I'd hate for him not to get his credit for his part in this fiasco.

Blaming someone else for your distracting play is scummy. This is noted. Also noted is that you fail to actually contribute in this post, and your circular logic from the other pages doesn't help your case.

A) I took the blame for my part in the action.
B) I was not the only one involved, but felt Drake's role in the incident was being overlooked because I was around and willing to talk about the issue. I don't feel I should be indicted simply for posting a lot and I don't believe someone should be given a pass for not being around.
C) How is this post not helpful? If I'm scum I'm either early bussing or trying to frame an innocent. If I'm town I'm showing a potential trap set by scum or maybe it's one big misunderstanding. If I'm killed in some fashion or cleared by a cop then it provides you a wealth of information about my relationship with Drake. It might not be useful this second, but long term it's plenty useful if you know how to use it.
D) The circular logic thing is a tired argument at this point, either you believe me that I was making a joke responding to a joking insult or you're

an idiot

convinced that I'm an idiot because only an idiot would've made that post in seriousness.

LK, you had no problem joining in with the parade of calling my tongue-in-cheek "circular logic" post unhelpful at best. Yet, later you unhelpfully bait na85 in a "tongue-in-cheek" name-calling move. Hypocrisy? Looks like it from here.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I will say this, (since in the real world I am a referee/umpire for a few sports). Generally speaking its not the first punch that is seen, but the reaction to it that draws the attention. This is why it really would have been better for you to just ignore that whole thing and move on.

Is this why you insist on ignoring all my rebuttals and pieces of evidence against you? Because if you "punch" back then you're drawing attention to damning evidence and rebuttals that leave you standing on imaginary evidence?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Here you go again. Trying yet again to drag someone else down with you. Enough is enough. Move on to doing something that might be productive to helping the town already.

Or is it your objective to be the first person to piss everyone off this game?

Watch this everybody.

Of course. Much to no one's surprise you simply evade the point at hand. I've Given you chance after chance to repond to my accusations and arguments in a fair fashion, because I believe that's best for the town, but you seem to have absolutely no interest in open dialogue and merely continue to parrot the same tired lines. Ultimately, your unwillingness or inability to defend yourself and your points leads me to one course of action. So...

Unvote

Vote: Freeko

I'm still not comfortable with ZEEnon and still tend to think he's scum, but at this juncture I'm much more confident in freeko being scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

My problem is with the bold bit (my bold). I'm not saying, as L-k seems to imply, that every post has to provide new information- there is nothing wrong with response and it's often appropriate to acknowledge other people's arguments and/or your mistakes. However, it is a bit of a stretch to say that a post is useful because in the overall context it can be used to create links between you and drake- townies don't need to conciously create or not create links, and this should not be your intention while voting.

Cutting down on the quote pyramid...

1) Did my post supply you with more information for the future?
2) Does it not help the town to have more information?

You say the town doesn’t need to purposefully create links and maybe it’s true, but does it hurt the town to do so? I don’t think so; I think the more information provided the better.

I think you're most bothered by my transparency because it is a bit unconventional. However, as I’ve noted before I think it’s an asset to the town, not a detriment. Scum have to lie and deceive to win the game, the town need to uncover the truth, if I don’t worry about appearances and simply present the facts as I see them then the town will benefit from one less layer of bullshit to cut through.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, why do you keep constantly trying to quanitfy your actions?

Because my actions are being misinterpreted. I realize my play style is a bit unconventional and I think that's the cause of much of the suspicion on me. I'm trying to explain my meta so that I can be judged on that and not on someone elses.

I always get a really defensive vibe from your posts....

That's because a large portion of my posts have been defensive in nature. People object to something I say, I look at my post again to make sure I'm saying what I want to say and either find the fault in my own post or try to explain why the person is wrong in their view.

Again, maybe other people prefer to ignore these things in the hopes that they go away, but that's simply not my style.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I realize my play style is a bit unconventional and I think that's the cause of much of the suspicion on me.

How do you mean? I see nothing at all unconventional about your play.

Well sure, apparently me playing with my content filter off looks to the rest of you like scum making 86,000 mistakes instead of a simply different play style. Furthermore, if freeko is any example the status quo is to ignore and evade any arguments made against you instead of taking them head on like I prefer to do which does in fact only seem to get me into more trouble as this post surely will, won't stop me from making them though.

I know at least some of you are you going to yell WIFOM because while it is, it's also easier than actually doing some actual content analysis. Check my one completed game here. As scum I deftly put myself into a position to win only blown in endgame by a terrible partner.

I can play with more subtlety than the bull in a china shop technique I've taken on. Now I already hear some of you crying, "but you're just playing this way so you can pull out this argument and try and reverse field", but why would I abandon a winning strategy to instead draw everyone's attention and criticism so I could then later pull-out a wacky WIFOMy argument such as this? It's nonsensical.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I'll address JereIC's post sometime Monday when it's not 2 AM.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Apologies to Pacman for the terrible, evil wall of text, but just maybe he could bother to read through it and actually do some scumhunting even if it's of me?

DDD seems to be constantly reversing his position and twisting his own words in response to anyone accusing him of saying something odd. In post 177,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this; who needs to be analyzed depends on the context of the situation. However, I think making a blanket statement like "4th or 5th people in a vote string are most likely to be scum" and then using it in actual game analysis is a terrible idea. It tells scum how to act to avoid suspicion, don't be the 4th or 5th vote.

However, DDD made very similar blanket statements in post 109 and in the next paragraph of 177, where he says the most suspicion should be on people first and last on the bandwagon. He also says we should look to people joining the wagon with sub-standard logic, but that’s just common sense.

I don't see a similar blanket statement in 109. I'd like to know what turn of phrase you're using as your claim here.

The next paragraph in 177 is a blanket statement to a degree. It appears I worded that poorly because as it stands it reads as those are the only people who should be analyzed which is dumb and if I got a chance to re-write it should be changed to something along the lines of "should be most heavily scrutinized" which doesn't contain the implication that no one else is worth analyzing.

I agree with Fishythefish’s post 185 and the second half of DtF’s post 189.

And I disagree with both, Fishy's complaint was that my reaction was unnatural and thus subject to WIFOM, but because this is forum mafia there are very few responses which are off the cuff and "natural" rendering his complaint moot. The issue was that I didn't shy away from making it known that I was purposefully doing what I was doing.

Drake seems to be taking my actions out of context to make his point as I made a point of trying to not assign a value to the link between us. If he feels it's damning then that's his own issue, but my point was to simply note the connection and let the individual decide how to approach it.

For example, in post 103 he says hammers on a bandwagon are most suspect, but in 177 he has narrowed the group of suspect wagoners to only dubious hammers, while expanding to votes that were initially random and those joining the wagon with sub-standard logic.

You're right.

Also, he’s gone from saying that post 109 was “useless and distracting” in post 127 to saying it was actually helpful in post 177.

You're wrong, 127 says 109 was “useless and distracting”. 177 refers to 127 as the helpful post. I guess you could suggest 127 requires 109, but 127 could've happened without it if I hadn't risen to Drake's joke, but later raised the issue of him trying to get a rise from me.

Having to twist what he wrote previously is scummy. It indicates that DDD realizes that he made statements that were

scummy

incorrect by themselves and is trying to rewrite them to be

less scummy

correct.

It also indicates he's more concerned about getting out of suspicion than in building an argument; he ends up undercutting what he has said already to appease his accusers.

Of course, I'm most concerned about getting out of suspicion. I have

one

piece of confirmed information. I win with the town. If I focus on getting someone else lynched there's a 20-35% "random" chance we lynch correctly and a 65-80% random chance we lynch a fellow pro-town player and that's assuming I somehow move the attention off me while spending more time examining other people. If I fail in moving suspicion off me and I'm lynched then there's a 100% chance a pro-town player has been lynched. It's simple math that I should dedicate the bulk of my time to not being lynched and yes, I have done some hunting in my defenses.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Of course, I'm most concerned about getting out of suspicion.

1 I have

one

piece of confirmed information. I win with the town. If I focus on getting someone else lynched there's a 20-35% "random" chance we lynch correctly and a 65-80% random chance we lynch a fellow pro-town player and that's assuming

I somehow move the attention off me while spending more time examining other people.

2

If I fail in moving suspicion off me and I'm lynched then there's a 100% chance a pro-town player has been lynched.

3 It's simple math that I should dedicate the bulk of my time to not being lynched and yes, I have done some hunting in my defenses.

1. This is a scum type play no matter your alignment. You seem to then spend the rest of the paragraph giving town reasons to defend your scum type play.

2. Why are you not devoting you time to examining other players? Why are all your posts primarily defensive? I think that while you should acknowledge cases against you, most of your time, effort, and posting space should be dedicated to catching scum and not in constantly back tracking to clarify a previous post's meaning. You to be doing the latter a lot and failing to make persuasive arguments to prove people are scum.

3. This is a plea to emotion or majority or both. In any of these cases, it is still a logical fallacy and does nothing to sway me away from voting you.

1. No it's not a scum play and Nuwen, Amished and Fishy have agreed that defensive posting is not a guaranteed scumtell as you suggest. You need to establish if you can how and why my defensive posting is a scumtell. The below in the psot was my logic for a heavily defensive posting style.

2. I don't have time to devote to pursuing other leads as much as I like because I'm stuck answering and responding to about five posts for every one I make, you're the one demanding I respond to your earlier post (Post #172) and then you complain when I do that and don't hunt as much as you'd like. I only have a finite amount of time and it seems like you're setting me up to fail either way.

3. No, it was following the percentages I laid out a line before. If I spend a minute defending myself, I'm spending a minute defending a pro-town player. If I spend a minute hunting then it's a 50/50 proposition at best as who I'm attacking and I've also left a pro-town player more vulnerable in that process.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Freeko, you don't deserve a response at this point. Instead here's that case I have been laying out all the while and everyone has pretended didn't exist.

1. He initially come after me on the contents of a joke post and claims of buddying based on a single post. Terrible arguments that I refuted.
2. He's ignored and invaded every counterpoint I've made and every argument I've made against him.
3. He's completely tunneled on me, while others like Drake and LK, have found time to at least analyze the actions of others, freeko only has eyes for me.
4. Now he's back and calling for my lynch again with nothing but appeals to emotion and riding the backs of everyone else who has done actual analysis on my posts.

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

Why didn't you write me? Why? It wasn't over for me, I waited for you for seven years. But now it's too late.

Fishythefish - 1 (pacman281292)
Debonair Danny DiPietro - 4 (DraketheFake, freeko, JereIC, Fishythefish)
Light-kun - 1 (na85)
freeko - 3 (Debonair Danny DiPietro, HowardRoark, Light-kun)
pacman281292 - 2 (ZEEnon, Amished)


12 alive, 7 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 230)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Of course, I'm most concerned about getting out of suspicion. I have

one

piece of confirmed information. I win with the town. If I focus on getting someone else lynched there's a 20-35% "random" chance we lynch correctly and a 65-80% random chance we lynch a fellow pro-town player and that's assuming I somehow move the attention off me while spending more time examining other people. If I fail in moving suspicion off me and I'm lynched then there's a 100% chance a pro-town player has been lynched. It's simple math that I should dedicate the bulk of my time to not being lynched and yes, I have done some hunting in my defenses.

Do you think a mislynch is always detrimental to the town?

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

I find it a little schizophrenic for a player who's been making one case on the same player for ~6 pages to accuse that same player of tunneling. Your attempt to buddy up to me and L-k is noted also.

A) I have touched on you early in the game for twisting my words, I have questioned LK on hypocrisy, and I made note of Pacman's lack of analysis.

Furthermore, this is hypocritical of you as when I did bring up Pacman's lack of content in passing you claimed it "Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you." So when I was trying to get a reaction and information from another player, it's distracting, but when I don't I'm purely defensive or tunneling, you're setting me up to fail.

B) As I covered before with freeko, a single post does not indicate buddying, buddying is a series of actions, a trend if you will and a single post would only be the beginning of such actions. If, however, you jump in like you did, you lose the needed secondary information to prove buddying and you're stuck with just a possibility. In this case a false one since I was merely using you and LK as a contrast to freeko's prior behavior.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Furthermore, this is hypocritical of you as when I did bring up Pacman's lack of content in passing you claimed it "Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you." So when I was trying to get a reaction and information from another player, it's distracting, but when I don't I'm purely defensive or tunneling, you're setting me up to fail.

A) I have touched on you early in the game for twisting my words, I have questioned LK on hypocrisy, and I made note of Pacman's lack of analysis.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Were you "making note of pacman's lack of analysis," or were you "trying to get a reaction and information from another player?" I don't have a problem with you noting pacman's lack of contribution - hell, it's not like it's all that much of a secret. But for you to couch your suspicion or note-making or reaction-soliciting or whatever you want to call it in the context of more defense of your own actions makes your own "contribution" seem like one of: an aside, or, you throwing things out there to avoid having people accuse you of focusing only on one player.

Which you have been.

Becuase it's obviously impossible for it to be both a note of his play and a probe for more information. Your either/or situation is busted and you're conveniently overlooking the other people I addressed before Pacman when you're coming to your conclusion of me trying to avoid suspicion by tossing names out there. It's not like I've tossed out a single name to try and get myself off the hook; I've built a case on one person and questioned or noted at least three more people when their play warranted it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Becuase it's obviously impossible for it to be both a note of his play and a probe for more information.

Your either/or situation is busted and you're conveniently overlooking the other people I addressed before Pacman when you're coming to your conclusion of me trying to avoid suspicion by tossing names out there.

But is it really either of those things if you start off a longer post that has nothing to do with pacman with a little jab at his play? The answer, is no. Especially considering the wealth of other posters actually addressing him in serious form.

And I'm not overlooking them. Your note on L-k was another jab in passing, and aside from your early vote on/suspicion of ZEEnon (which, I note, you've dropped entirely) you've been freeko freeko freeko. Which is not to say that we should throw that on the heap of evidence by any means. Just that for you to accuse a player of tunneling is not the most weighty accusation of all time.

I disagree with the main thrust of this, but it's not worth going over line by line because even if I am tunneling it doesn't refute my contention that freeko is and that's just a piece of the case I built against him.

I did get distracted by defending myself and didn't really explain my thoughts on ZEEnon. I've still got him towards the middle-top of my list, but his actions are so confusing and generally poor it's hard to tell if he's scum or just terrible town.

He opened the game by flipping his wig about random votes and nearly gave up under the slightest pressure. He then immediately reversed field and posted a huge block of text with no solid argumentation and basically seemed to OMGUS both Nuwen and Mizz/Roark. He went missing for a while and then his latest post completely misunderstands the point Nuwen was getting at, I think.

All told I think his actions have been fairly anti-town, but I'm not yet sure whether they're scummy or not.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

Do you believe there's scum propelling your wagon, besides Feeko?

Not sure, not evidence enough to build a solid case on any of them. I have Drake near the middle-top, he's twisted my words in the past and often seems to focus on trivial parts of my arguments to score points instead of looking at the bigger picture. JereIC is somewhere in the middle, not enough information for me to think I've got a good read either way. I've liked everything I've seen from Fishy other than the vote on me.

These statements add up to any of the following:

1. A false (vanilla?) town claim made by scum.
2. A true (vanilla?) claim, made by someone more interested in remaining alive than providing the town with a scum-powered wagon to pick apart on day 2.

Wouldn't a better option than providing the town with a potentially scum-powered wagon would be to provide the town with a correct lynch? Furthermore, if someone else is lynched and it is still a mislynch isn't there a distinct possibility it could still be scum-driven or likely having scum contribute significantly?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

And freeko continues much the same trend as before. He actually tried to counter my points this time. Unfortunately, his idea of refuting my arguments is to say "nuh uh" or OMGUS. Besides being an exceedingly predictable response, OMGUS doesn't really apply since I laid out clear reasons why I was voting for him and you'll have to excuse me is "nuh uh" doesn't appear to be the most persuasive argument I've ever seen.

He adds nothing new to his arguments, repeats the same falsehoods again, and tries to dismiss my arguments simply on the basis of who is making them.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I disagree with the recent criticism of DDD for wanting to survive. Sure, a lynch of a townie can be beneficial, but this rare, rarer if planned, and there is no obvious reason this one is.

If DDD is a townie, at this stage he should prefer anyone else to die other than him, since anyone else could be scum.

My lynch would be my least favourite today- can anyone honestly say different? (

sets a cunning trap for jesters!

)

This is correct and this is the logic I tried to present in semi-numerical form earlier.

(And now someone can accuse me of buddying with Fishy, this is a fun game.)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Hm... You still lie, you still say he did zero scum hunting. I see some.

Well, I certainly dont see it. Maybe you could point it out to me because every time I isolate his posts, there is nothing that shows effort towards scumhunting.

1. He initially come after me on the contents of a joke post and claims of buddying based on a single post. Terrible arguments that I refuted.
2. He's ignored and invaded every counterpoint I've made and every argument I've made against him.
3. He's completely tunneled on me, while others like Drake and LK, have found time to at least analyze the actions of others, freeko only has eyes for me.
4. Now he's back and calling for my lynch again with nothing but appeals to emotion and riding the backs of everyone else who has done actual analysis on my posts.

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

[quote="DDD @ 245]I did get distracted by defending myself and didn't really explain my thoughts on ZEEnon. I've still got him towards the middle-top of my list, but his actions are so confusing and generally poor it's hard to tell if he's scum or just terrible town.

He opened the game by flipping his wig about random votes and nearly gave up under the slightest pressure. He then immediately reversed field and posted a huge block of text with no solid argumentation and basically seemed to OMGUS both Nuwen and Mizz/Roark. He went missing for a while and then his latest post completely misunderstands the point Nuwen was getting at, I think. [/quote]

[quote="DDD @ 247]Not sure, not evidence enough to build a solid case on any of them. I have Drake near the middle-top, he's twisted my words in the past and often seems to focus on trivial parts of my arguments to score points instead of looking at the bigger picture. JereIC is somewhere in the middle, not enough information for me to think I've got a good read either way. I've liked everything I've seen from Fishy other than the vote on me. [/quote]

And that's just the last page, so, yeah, freeko was wrong with this argument before and lately he's been even more wrong. Meanwhile he continues to ignore all posts of mine directed at him. He just keep affirming my arguments against him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

EBWOP: To fix quote tags, have to remember I need to preview my posts to make sure those things are correct.

Hm... You still lie, you still say he did zero scum hunting. I see some.

Well, I certainly dont see it. Maybe you could point it out to me because every time I isolate his posts, there is nothing that shows effort towards scumhunting.

1. He initially come after me on the contents of a joke post and claims of buddying based on a single post. Terrible arguments that I refuted.
2. He's ignored and invaded every counterpoint I've made and every argument I've made against him.
3. He's completely tunneled on me, while others like Drake and LK, have found time to at least analyze the actions of others, freeko only has eyes for me.
4. Now he's back and calling for my lynch again with nothing but appeals to emotion and riding the backs of everyone else who has done actual analysis on my posts.

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

I did get distracted by defending myself and didn't really explain my thoughts on ZEEnon. I've still got him towards the middle-top of my list, but his actions are so confusing and generally poor it's hard to tell if he's scum or just terrible town.

He opened the game by flipping his wig about random votes and nearly gave up under the slightest pressure. He then immediately reversed field and posted a huge block of text with no solid argumentation and basically seemed to OMGUS both Nuwen and Mizz/Roark. He went missing for a while and then his latest post completely misunderstands the point Nuwen was getting at, I think.

Not sure, not evidence enough to build a solid case on any of them. I have Drake near the middle-top, he's twisted my words in the past and often seems to focus on trivial parts of my arguments to score points instead of looking at the bigger picture. JereIC is somewhere in the middle, not enough information for me to think I've got a good read either way. I've liked everything I've seen from Fishy other than the vote on me.

And that's just the last page, so, yeah, freeko was wrong with this argument before and lately he's been even more wrong. Meanwhile he continues to ignore all posts of mine directed at him. He just keep affirming my arguments against him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You realize the entirety of your post #225 is an OMGUS attack on me right? Thats not scumhunting. You conveniently left out the part of that post where you tell me that I am not deserving of a response anymore. This is as blatant as an OMGUs as you can get, exceopt that you didnt vote for me. Oh, you already did some time ago before that post. (3 days between the vote and this OMGUS for anyone not keeping track) It is also not the first or only OMGUS attack you attempt on me isnt it?

OMGUS means the only or primary reason I'm voting you is because you're voting me. This shouldn't be all that persuasive to other people. "I'm voting you because you're voting me" isn't a sound argument. However, if my reasons were so unpersuasive, so nonexistant then why have you picked up two votes since I put them out there and several other members of the town have noted that your behvior is in fact anti-town in the exact fashion I laid out? Because they are credible reasons and not the OMGUS vote you wish it were. So stop trying to evade my arguments by claiming OMGUS and actually refute them if you can.

And why did I chose not to address you? Because if you're not going to engage in debate on a level playing field with me then it's not worth my time to talk with you. If you're going to engage me like this, then I have no problems engaging in a dialogue.

Meanwhile you trot out the same tired lines about me which don't have any merit. You've also failed to note how that even if I am "floundering" how that's a scum tell when there's perfectly reasonable reasons have been presented for a pro-town player to behave in such a manner.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Does anyone else find his response as funny as I do?

[OMGUS]Which is your reason for voting on me. I voted you, and your initial response was to try to backtrack and deflect as you do with everyone else that has put suspicion on you so far. That did not work so your next play was to vote for me and try to hide the OMGUS as much as you could, which you failed in doing.

Bizarre, apparently Post 225 doesn't exist in freeko's world.

Im certain you have no arguments that are worth refuting.

Im certain you have no arguments that are worth refuting.

Im certain you have no arguments that are worth refuting.

freeko's last post is unimpressive. He should at the very least acknowledge the arguments made against him in 225, and not doing so adds enormously to the "freeko is ignoring my arguments" statement from DDD. As well as totally ignoring the attack against him, he also says nothing new, but parrots arguments already put forward by other players and himself. This looks particularly bad because one of them- lack of scumhunting- has now been to some extent invalidated. To my mind, this post looks as if freeko decided to post against DDD, then scraped around for some arguments, rather than attacking DDD because he has some arguments against him. This could be motivated either by a desire to be seen to be making arguments (anti-town, as it leads to bad arguments), by tunnel vision on DDD (anti-town) or by a desire for a quick lynch (scummy). Whichever it is, I don't like it.

I'm going to review freeko's posts, but you, HowardRoark, and Fishythedelishy have made some good points about him.

I believe his [Danny] last post is scumhunting, thus your [freeko] post is a lie.

And I'm having a tough time understanding Roark's arguments, but with his vote on you, I'd suggest he thinks you gots some explaining to do as well. Five people, chief. That's nearly half the town who think you need to explain yourself and yelling OMGUS really loud isn't doing it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

EBWOP: I give up, does anyone know if HTML tags work on this forum?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I would like na85, Drake, Amished, JereIC, and ZEE to let us know what they think of freeko's complete and total meltdown lately and if/why they feel more comfortable with their votes where they are right now.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

unvote freeko

I want to take away the chance of the self vote hammer. My hopes? That if you are town, freeko, that you share any other insights that you have.

Right, he just tried to self-hammer, but he's really going to have a sudden change of heart and now decide to actually help the town, riiiiiggggghhhhht.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Best of luck fellow penguins.