Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

I'm going to start working towards accomplishing a lynch for today.

Here is the current vote count to my understanding:

Zilla (4/7): BB, Goat, Panzer, Dourgrim
Panzer (3/7): Ting, Subgenius, Spring
Birthday (2/7): Qwints, GIEFF
GIEFF (1/7): Mykonian
Mykonian (1/7): Zilla

Not Voting: Militant

I doubt anyone who's name is not Zilla/Panzer/Birthday is going to get lynched today. With that being said, I'm interested in specific stances on those 3.

Militant

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Mykonian

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Zilla

: Out of BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 2? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Ting

: I don't know why you are voting for Panzer. Are you still interested in his lynch? Why or why not? Out of BB/Zilla/Panzer, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer?

Qwints

: Your vote is on BB, but it's been a long time since you placed it, and I don't recall you discussing it much since then. Are you still interested in lynching him? Are you willing to lynch Panzer/Zilla? If so, in what order? Additionally, what happened to your original statement that Panzer/Mykonian were your top two?

GIEFF

: I assume BB is your top choice for a lynch based on your vote. Would you be willing to lynch either Panzer/Zilla? If so, what order?

Spring

: You stated that you are unwilling to lynch Zilla. Would you be willing to lynch either BB or Panzer in that case? If so, do you have a preference?

BB

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you also willing to lynch Panzer?

Panzer

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you willing to lynch BB?

Dourgrim

: Stance made clear in Post 786.

Mod:

Are we getting a replacement for subgenius?

[GIEFF]

Goat, in my below post, I read you in iso, and realized I didn't answer the below 2 questions by you towards me:

What's the real reason you think she's town? I don't think these "issues with her wagon" are the real reasons you don't want to lynch her. Maybe this is what you are telling yourself is the reason behind it, but I would doubt this is the honest truth.

I think she is more likely to be scum than town. My "issues" were realized when both Panzer and Dourgrim jumped on the Zilla-wagon after I jumped off. Everything else followed from there.

I think you are a townie. Is that a scum slip? Or is that my opinion based on the evidence within the thread?

Of course that's not a slip. You are conscious of it. You say you think I am a townie.

Accidentally

revealing knowledge that a townie should not have is scummy; this should be an easy point to understand.

Now, on to the rest of my post.
-------

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

This reminded me of your behavior much earlier in the thread:


You defend Panzer
I say I don't like you defending Panzer
You admit you were a bit hasty in jumping to Panzer's defense.

After this, you make the below posts questioning Panzer:

149
165
240 - in this post, you say you you find Panzer scummy, but something seems off about the wagon.
In response to Zilla's prods, you write in 295 that your logic says Panzer is scummy, but your gut says he is not.

But after this point, you only mentioned Panzer in relation to Zilla (including saying he could be a scumbuddy in 564) until Panzer's 614, in which he says "we're overthinking this lynch" soon after I unvoted Zilla. He claims the timing is coincidence, but I don't believe him. Anyway, after post 614, you asked him a couple questions and got him to vote Zilla. Am I right in assuming that at this point, you still found Panzer scummy? And the fact that he apologized to you is still very weird to me. Why would he apologize to you?

And after you get Panzer to re-join the Zilla wagon, you don't mention Panzer again, until I ask you directly what you think of him and mykonian. You respond in 775 that you actually see Panzer as pro-town now, but your reasoning for this change in heart relates SOLELY to logic about Zilla.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?


Can you point to an example of you answering for another player that is NOT Panzer? I didn't find one in my iso-read of you (which was admittedly not completely thorough).

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: I assume BB is your top choice for a lynch based on your vote. Would you be willing to lynch either Panzer/Zilla? If so, what order?

I have actually been gravitating more toward mykonian lately. My lynch-desirability list keeps changing, but right now, I believe it is:

B_B...mykonian
Zilla...Panzer

Although looking at that, I realize that three out of the four players have pissed me off; Panzer is the only one that I don't have to worry about being clouded by my own emotions.

To be fair, as I said in my recent vote summary, ting's vote on Panzer is from post 38, and subgenius' vote was very old, too. Spring is the only vote that should really count.

So if we make it just between B_B and Zilla, I would prefer B_B, but in the interests of ending the day, I would not kick and scream against a Zilla lynch.



And ting, why the hell haven't you changed your vote since post 38? It is hard for me to believe that a player whose objective is to lynch scum would not use his vote.

[Goatrevolt]

Anyway, after post 614, you asked him a couple questions and got him to vote Zilla. Am I right in assuming that at this point, you still found Panzer scummy? And the fact that he apologized to you is still very weird to me. Why would he apologize to you?

At that point, yes. My series of questions to Panzer were "I think he is a Zilla scum buddy, so I'm probing him" questions. He stated strong support of the Zilla wagon, but wasn't on it. I wanted to see what he had to say about that.

As for the apology, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not reading it as a significant tell either way, really.

And after you get Panzer to re-join the Zilla wagon, you don't mention Panzer again, until I ask you directly what you think of him and mykonian. You respond in 775 that you actually see Panzer as pro-town now, but your reasoning for this change in heart relates SOLELY to logic about Zilla.

Back in the 300s, Panzer was roughly 3rd on my scum list. I thought the case against him was solid in terms of the logical inconsistencies. Some of his posts just struck me as town, though. I have a hard time explaining exactly what that factor is, but it was enough to keep me off his wagon. At that point, BB/Macavity were 1 and 2, and Panzer was 3. From that point on, even though I thought Zilla was town, Panzer's attack on Zilla also seemed pro-town. He was voting on and off as a result of new evidence. His original vote on Birthday was what caused me to go back and look at Birthday myself, and I agreed with his point. Panzer seemed to be taking solid stances and making legitimate points. Panzer was still around number 3 for me, but I didn't really consider him a lynch option anymore. I was far more interested in Birthday.

Once I started to see Zilla as scum, I saw Panzer as a scum buddy. That wasn't directly related to anything Panzer did, but more my interpretation of Zilla's actions. Panzer's on/off of the Zilla wagon seemed reasonable. The reason I saw him as a scum buddy was because of Zilla's actions. She had Panzer as a consistently scummy target, but was interested instead in attacking me and Mykonian, and partially because we were "defending" Panzer. I found it odd that she was so hardcore about people defending Panzer but she never really bothered to attack him herself. It kind of struck me how scum will see someone sticking up for their scum buddy and will want to point out how anti-town they are for sticking up for scum, but yet they can't reveal they know that player is scum.

Then there was post 614, my questioning of Panzer to see where he stood on Zilla. I didn't really learn anything from that. He responded basically how I expected him to respond. I changed my mind on him because of his "I won't participate until Zilla claims" stance. First of all, I see it as less likely that scum take that stance in the first place, because it is a really easy for people to put suspicion on them for that move. Panzer as scum would be tossing himself in the spotlight there for little real gain. Secondly, scum don't really want to lynch their scum buddies. If Zilla is scum, as I believe, then Panzer is going above and beyond the scumbuddy call to bus. He'd be looking for opportunities to get off the wagon, not making ultimatums that we either lynch his scum buddy or he stops contributing.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?

I mention that above. His stances on BB/Zilla have been reasonable, and have come on and off based on changes in evidence. I'm not seeing any hidden motives behind it. I actually view his "Not participating until Zilla claims" bit as a less likely move for scum to make. And then there is my opinion on Zilla.

Can you point to an example of you answering for another player that is NOT Panzer? I didn't find one in my iso-read of you (which was admittedly not completely thorough).

I can only think of two times this game that I answered prior to letting the player answer themselves. One was that time with Panzer, and the other was me defending against Zilla's initial case on Mykonian.

I let Panzer answer first for your recent attack before giving my opinion, and I let Mykonian answer recent attacks first, before jumping in to say that you were attacking him for bringing up LAL, when he was just answering Zilla's question about it.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

No, I don't. Zilla's behavior toward B_B looked like a scum toward her buddy (i.e. saying she found him really scummy, but not voting for him and instead focusing on you), but B_B's behavior toward her does not.

But I also very much doubt they are town buddies. I think it is more likely they are town buddies than scum buddies, but it's still much more likely that they are not of the same alignment.

Back in the 300s, Panzer was roughly 3rd on my scum list. I thought the case against him was solid in terms of the logical inconsistencies. Some of his posts just struck me as town, though.

Fine, and this is consistent with what you said in the past. Let's call this "A."

Once I started to see Zilla as scum, I saw Panzer as a scum buddy. That wasn't directly related to anything Panzer did, but more my interpretation of Zilla's actions.

Let's call this "B."


So, Panzer was 3rd on your scumlist, and seen by you as scummy, due to A. Then, you discovered B. Then, you discounted B. Shouldn't that leave you just with A? When explaining why you found Panzer pro-town, you just mention why B is not valid. This reminds me of B_B's dismount from the Panzer wagon; he said that he didn't like my later points, which negated the earlier ones.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?

I mention that above.

I disagree. According to your "Back in the 300s" paragraph, even after Panzer made good points about B_B, he was still 3rd on your scumlist, so his pro-town actions had to have occurred AFTER this point. And your next two paragraphs have a "too-scummy" WIFOM fallacy, and relate solely to Panzer's behavior through your Zilla-is-scum lens (i.e. they don't relate to "A").

[Goatrevolt]

So, Panzer was 3rd on your scumlist, and seen by you as scummy, due to A. Then, you discovered B. Then, you discounted B. Shouldn't that leave you just with A? When explaining why you found Panzer pro-town, you just mention why B is not valid. This reminds me of B_B's dismount from the Panzer wagon; he said that he didn't like my later points, which negated the earlier ones.

That's ignoring C: my opinion of Zilla affecting my read of Panzer, and D: My "too scummy fallacy" as you choose to put it.

I have A (logic inconsistencies vs. gut). Then there is B (scum team). Then I discount B, creating C (not scum team). Then there is D (his Zilla-claim stance not being the percentage play for scum).

So it's not just A. It's A, C, D.

Regarding the "too scummy" fallacy, that's not what I'm arguing at all. From my perspective, Panzer's aggression towards Zilla is not scummy. I'm arguing that his play put him needlessly in the spotlight, and thus is something scum are less likely to do than town. Scum don't want attention. Panzer doing that is bound to bring him attention (as it has).

[Zilla]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

[Zilla]

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

[Goatrevolt]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

I can never "prove" anything. All I have is what I think makes sense. And I don't think your claim that GIEFF had no outstanding stances besides Dour, and that's why you viewed him as town makes sense. You noted his stances on BB and Panzer in previous posts. Therefore it stands to reason you knew he had more stances that just Dour. I think you were lying about the reasons you had GIEFF and Dour as top townies.

I point this out at the top of Post 769. Any response?

I also feel that you are dishonest in your suspicions and voting. I don't think your vote changes have reflected periods where your suspicions legitimately changed as much as periods where Zilla needed a different vote. Why did you recently unvote me? You just finished making a huge post about how I "misrepresented" you.

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

They are scummy in terms of a "here's a list of 24 common scum tells, it's on that list" mentality. I don't think it's scummy in that I don't think it makes him more likely to be scum, regardless of your alignment. Admittedly, it's not a huge point, but I simply think it's less likely he makes that play as scum than town.

-------

I just read through all of Mykonian's posts. I really don't think he is scum.

[GIEFF]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

[Beyond_Birthday]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF

solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you.

But I didn't deny this. Honestly, I was half assing this game and not paying much attention until whenever it was I was bandwagoned by Goat.

And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid

When you see someone surrender and acknowledge the point, you don't bring it up again and again and again. THAT IS stupid.

and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.

All true...? What's your point?

2.1 is not an exit clause.

It can still be treated as an exit clause, no matter what you claim it is supposed to be.

It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.

If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right?

False.

Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.

Granted, but again, your reasoning only looks at one possibilty. You could give scum buddies an out if they make it look like they were proven wrong and admit it and appear townie for being able to acknowledge their error. It CAN be used as an exit clause. I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.

What? You know what, no...no. I just don't fucking care anymore. You are so illogical... *Takes your wrists, slices open the skin, and lets the blood flow out.* I refuse to drink this because it is obviously infected with stupidity.
Just because you make a strong case against someone does not clear you from being their scum buddy.

None of them, specifically. They are excellent points, and I think Zilla is scum.

And you are not voting Zilla because...? What? Is the cage too small you have no choice but to wither from an attempt at following through with your thoughts?

Beyond_Birthday 100%, obv sk. (This is a joke.)
Zilla - 54%
Dourgrim - 38%
GIEFF - 49%
Goatrevolt -29%
qwints -46%
militant - 32%
mykonian -40%
Panzerjager - 39%
springlullaby - 35%
subgenius - 36%
ting =) - 36%

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

Goat

Here are the percents of scumminess all have. These assume 0 is perfectly town and scum is 100

[GIEFF]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

It was meant to contrast your refusal to respond to points I've made.

I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

I have not done this. If scum think I have, then that's all the better for me. I was asked to explain my reasoning and I did. This is not EVERYTHING I find scummy about ALL cases on ALL mafia players. It is just related to why I think Panzer's lie about his random vote was scummy.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. My point is a lot simpler than this. Townies base their votes on evidence, logic, reasoning, and gut. Scum do not; they fake these things in order to look townie. That's it.


Your behavior can't be explained away so simply. You were lying. A "yes, that was scummy" defense might work for other people here, but it doesn't for me, especially when you fought a similar claim that your play had been scummy tooth and nail. I just can't see a townie playing that way.

[Goatrevolt]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

Yes, and yes.

By that second yes, I'm not saying Mykonian has really put out a lot of pressure in order to catch scum, but I do feel like he has been legitimately trying to figure out people's alignments.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, 2 things:

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.

First, this doesn't seem to jive with your play this game.

Explain to me:

Your vote change to BB from me back in post 544. What, specifically, at that point in time made you think BB was a better place for your vote to be?

Your recent unvote on me. What specifically made you feel your vote was no longer worthwhile being on me. You had just finished a monster of a post, where you accuse me repeatedly of misrepresentations and strawmanning a strawman definition, etc. What about that caused you to unvote me?

Secondly, I want you to explain this: Here you mention that Birthday-scum would partially absolve me of being scum. Yet, here you say you suspect 2 or 3 of Me, GIEFF, Birthday to be scum. What was the difference. Why at one point am I not likely to be a scum buddy to Birthday, but at another point I can be one? Furthermore, in that 2nd post, you note that Birthday is your most likely to be scum out of us 3, yet in the first linked post you state that Birthday wasn't your top suspect, I was. Those are two contradictory ideas.

[Goatrevolt]

I still strongly feel that Zilla is scum and will maintain my vote there.

Zilla - 54%

Strongly is an arbitrary 54%?

-------

I've read through all of Zilla + Birthday's posts. Doing so actually lessened my suspicion of Zilla by a decent factor. A lot of the alleged misrepresentations seem less malicious in intent. Example: I linked to post 295, she attacked post 240. Since post 295 was an extension of Post 240, I can somewhat understand that, however, Post 295 also contained a stand-alone stance on Panzer, which is what she asked for. I gave her an answer to her question, but she didn't look at it closely enough to realize it. Then she kept attacking me on that point, which was annoying, frustrating, and felt like she was deliberately nitpicking minutae to deflect from Birthday, who she didn't really have a clear opinion on. It annoyed me, because I kept pointing to 295, and she kept saying that it wasn't valid, but she clearly had not read 295, or she would realize that there was a stand-alone stance on Panzer in that post. After reading through all of her posts, she consistently misses that point, which seems more of a misunderstanding based on her not actually reading the post I linked and less of a direct strawman.

Secondly, she continues to say that my example scenario about lynching for information is scummy because I assume Panzer is town. Despite me saying this over and over again, I still don't think she understands

that was the entire point

. Lynching for information implies that it doesn't matter if someone is town, so long as you get information. I was extracting that, and saying "so, let's assume we've lynched Panzer and he is town, then what? What have we learned?" I'm not saying I think or know Panzer is town. I merely wanted to debunk that theory. Her argument: "You're taking the possibility Panzer is scum out of the argument. That's because you must know he's town." My argument: "You don't seem to realize that is the entire point of my post."

Quite frequently, I get the picture that Zilla simply doesn't understand what I'm saying (or I don't understand her points) and that's what the problem is.

Regardless, I'm still suspicious of aspects of her play. Her vote swapping, for example, still doesn't seem to coincide at natural points. They still look to me like attempts to change the subject away from her. I still don't believe her explanation about GIEFF being town. I still think she was dishonest in her initial push on me (presenting points that weren't really her real reason for voting me). I can't remember if I actually asked Zilla this question or not, but do people routinely accuse you of misrepresenting them in games?

Reading through Birthday, I don't have a whole lot to add. I think the reason I was pushing for his lynch earlier is still valid. I still don't know why he bothered to try to defend his vote on Panzer if he was going to later on just agree that it was a scummy wagon vote. Why first lie, then later go for the truth? I think spring makes a decent point about him dropping the "note to self" gig, although that's more of a minor point. Since his defense of himself (or lack thereof) and Zilla vote, I haven't had many complaints. The only thing I'm all that skeptical of is the % thing above. Also, I will note that Birthday really doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the game. I'm not sure if that's a meaningful tell or not.

-------

Ting/Qwints I find scummy. Not really for the lurking aspect, as it's a long, fast-paced game with giant posts, but more for the lack of solid stances. Ting has made good points and comments, but has made little in terms of actual stances (actually, subgenius fits that category as well). I want Qwints to further explain his vote on Birthday, and explain what happened to his original Panzer/Mykonian suspicion.

[mykonian]

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

BB is looking much more scummy then, his attention goes to the people that are already voted. Bit bandwagony, then. What he brings up against GIEFF makes me think that I could be right about GIEFF, and he has a reason to go that way, in case GIEFF is going to be lynched.

I think little changes about Zilla, then.

So, I won't vote Panzer, I could vote Zilla, if needed, but only on BB I have serious suspicions (in case GIEFF is not scum)

[mykonian]

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

I've read this a few times, and I'm confused at what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that I think that a jokepost means that there can't be a scumtell in it? The scumtell isn't the fact that it was or wasn't a joke-vote; it's the fact that Panzer lied about it.

and panzers lie is supposed to be that he votes serious over a jokepost from me, which is not a lie.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Now that you realize you have made a mistake, do you think you could consider revising (I guess I should say re-revising) your opinion of what my case actually was?

you are doing it again, the part "for wanting to lynch mafia" is the important part. He says I show a wrong intention there. I already posted that, you didn't want to see it.

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

This is very difficult to understand. I think the language barrier is a lot wider than I realized up until this point. Are you trying to say Panzer wasn't really lying?

no, this is partly the time. Yes I'm saying Panzer didn't lie, you misrepresented into a lie.

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote
Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Yes, it very much follows. And again, this was practically PROVEN long ago, to the point that even Panzer agreed. Why do you still refuse to?

because it is not right. He voted me because he thought I showed that I didn't want to lynch mafia. He didn't vote me because I thought you antitown. This is twisting Panzers words.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt?

Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

What the hell? So you did see that post? And you are still arguing this? Your case on me is that you think the following quote is NOT Panzer saying that you called me anti-town?

Ridiculous.

Yes, He says that I call you antitown for

scummy reasons

(the fact that you want to lynch mafia)

and stop hiding behind: it happened so long ago and it was resolved. That's what happens in a forum game, we can read back and see what we can find. I think you continiously misrepresented Panzer, and build a case based on that that floated on the word LIE. That is scummy.

[Dourgrim]

BB: I wonder, does your percentage-based system takes into account differences in posting frequency? The "lurkers" overall seem to be rated lower than the frequent posters. I'd be curious to know how this system works.

[GIEFF]

and stop hiding behind: it happened so long ago and it was resolved. That's what happens in a forum game, we can read back and see what we can find. I think you continiously misrepresented Panzer, and build a case based on that that floated on the word LIE. That is scummy.

Panzer disagrees:

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

And also, I HAVE dropped it; I am no longer pursuing Panzer as my lynch-choice, and have not been for a long time. You are the one who keeps calling me scummy because you don't understand my case, so I am trying to explain to you that it isn't what you think it is. I should probably just ignore you, but when you repeat over and over again that my case was just LAL, I feel like I have to set the record straight.

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

If I can't convince you I'm not scum, that's fine, but PLEASE don't play this way. If you are town, we lose your scumhunting abilities completely, because your whole outlook on the game will be skewed by the fact that you are so sure I'm scum.

[mykonian]

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

If I can't convince you I'm not scum, that's fine, but PLEASE don't play this way. If you are town, we lose your scumhunting abilities completely, because your whole outlook on the game will be skewed by the fact that you are so sure I'm scum.

that was the second half of the post: where I assume you are town, and end with BB likely scum, for given reasons. You cut out that piece of the post on purpose, I think, to be able to make this point.

[GIEFF]

I was not making a point to call you scummy, mykonian; I was just trying to make sure that if you are town, you are not viewing the entire game through a faulty lens (i.e. me-as-scum). I simply was focusing on that part because that is the part I have a problem with.

[mykonian]

and the other part is just as important in my view on the game.

GIEFF, I know I'm not a great scumhunter, so of course I keep doubts even if I think someone is scum. Guess it is inexperience, but most times I can't see a difference between scummy play and imperfect town play. Your play however, does fit in with classical scum: take out small bits, twist them a bit, point out how they are scummy, use a "big" word for it and hope it carries a weak town to a lynch.

[GIEFF]

mykonian; I am sorry you see my play that way, and it is not at all what I am trying to do. I "take out small bits" because I think they are all that is relevant to the point I am trying to make. My posts are already far too long, and if I quoted an entire post every time I wanted to reference it, nobody could follow my train of thought.

If my point was that your quote was meant to represent your view of the game, then yes, it would be misrepresentation, and it would be scummy. But that was NOT my point.

Here's another example of you assumign I am saying something that I am not at all trying to say:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town,

for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

Let me try to summarize your thinking in the above post, mykonian: "GIEFF is trying to convince people the reason Panzer voted mykonian is the fact that mykonian called GIEFF antitown." Is that accurate?

But that is not at all what I am trying to convince people of. I am just trying to convince them that Panzer did in fact assert that mykonian called GIEFF anti-town, as THIS is the lie that you don't seem to think exists. Panzer later says that he knew mykonian's vote for GIEFF was a joke. But the fact that Panzer did assert that mykonian called GIEFF anti-town reveals that fact that it was NOT a joke

THIS is how I reveal the lie, and THIS is why the lie is so obvious, and this lie did not come in the random-voting stage. He claimed he knew your vote was a joke, but it is clear that at the time, he felt you really thought I was anti-town. If you REALLY think I am anti-town (which you did not), then it CANNOT be a joke. Right? That is the contradiction, one with which Panzer himself agreed.

I understand that this is a complicated point, and I fear the language barrier is a problem here. But do you see that what you assumed I was trying to do is not what I was actually doing?

[Dourgrim]

Goatrevolt: in three sentences or less, what is your stance on GIEFF? I'm genuinely curious here, and not because of my prior stance on him.