Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over


User avatar
Beyond_Birthday
Beyond_Birthday
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Beyond_Birthday
Goon
Goon
Posts: 903
Joined: June 14, 2008

Post Post #850 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:15 am

Post by Beyond_Birthday »

Goatrevolt wrote:
BB wrote:I still strongly feel that Zilla is scum and will maintain my vote there.
BB wrote:Zilla - 54%
Strongly is an arbitrary 54%?
Yes. My percentages very rarely, if ever, exceed 60%. My percentages very rarely, if ever, fall under 20%.
Dourgrim wrote: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.
Actually, the system does take account lurking, but that system doesn't work until at least day 2 and very based on the persons content level, under the assumption that when they return that they actually post meaningful content. Sub and Ting are in danger of this, I know. However, my percentages on them will not be too high until at least day 2. (And lynch all lurkers is a terrible idea. If my rating system gave lurking too much weight, I would be killing the wrong person almost every day, non?)

To pick out the conveniently absent people, Ting and Sub will definitely have a much higher percentages tomorrow.

Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.
Show
I'm coming up on Infra-Red
There is no running that can hide you
Cause I can see in the dark
Town: 5-2
Mafia: 1-2-1
Neu~: 0-0
6-4-1
"quit making me prove your points." ~Phayt AKA TheSkeward
User avatar
mykonian
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
User avatar
User avatar
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Posts: 11963
Joined: August 27, 2008

Post Post #851 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:25 am

Post by mykonian »

GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town,
for simply wanting to lynch mafia
. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
do you see the difference with:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town
, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
Pond Scum
Posts: 2421
Joined: May 17, 2008
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Post Post #852 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:39 am

Post by Goatrevolt »

Dourgrim wrote: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.
I think he's been fairly pro-town thus far. I disagree with some of the points he has pressed, but he appears to be genuinely trying to find scum. My only solid point of suspicion is based on his voting record.

---------

Gieff: How many times do you generally go back and read through (proofread/edit) your posts prior to posting them?

Secondly, You mentioned (and I agree) that BB/Zilla don't really fit as scum together. Yet you label both BB and Zilla as scum. How does that work?

Why were you still voting for Panzer after BB admitted to lying about his reasons for voting for Panzer? Why was Panzer a better target than BB at that point?
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
Pond Scum
Posts: 2421
Joined: May 17, 2008
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Post Post #853 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:40 am

Post by Goatrevolt »

Beyond_Birthday wrote:Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.
What is your reasoning behind these shifts?
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #854 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:50 am

Post by Zilla »

On GIEFF/Dourgrim being town, you're either not seeing what I'm saying or choosing to ignore it. I didn't count his opinion on Panzer, I didn't even know he had anything on BB. I said he HAD been suspicious of Panzer, but he dropped that and instead focused on Dour, and Dour focused on him. I said this already.

I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."
Goatrevolt wrote: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?
Partially because he was viewed as mutually exclusive scum at the time (I didn't see your attack as a bus job at that point) with an also high-chance of being scum, and I didn't like that contradiction existing. If it turned out that he was scum (which, independent of his connection to someone else I felt was scum), I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on you. The other part was because it seemed like nobody was seeing my points, so my vote wasn't accomplishing anything being the solitary vote on you. I still felt you were scummy, and when you drop Birthday at L-2, something looks fishy.
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?
Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.
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?
The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.

Later, I consider exactly
why
you were pursuing him all day and suddenly drop him when I climb on, and I come to the conclusion that you honestly did intend to lynch him until I jumped on, which made me think you got nervous when I mentioned that lynching Birthday would give more information about you. If Birthday was scum, that'd partially absolve you because, if I was right in thinking your intention to lynch him was sincere, you would be doing that from a town mindset. I could have been wrong about that though, hence "partially," since nothing is certain. If he was town and you were sincere about lynching him, that really makes me think you were knowing scum that jumped ship when you realized your accountability. If he was town and you weren't sincere, heck, no matter his alignment and you're not sincere, you're obviously pulling something scummy.
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.
BB was only my top suspect that, if two out of the three of GIEFF, Goat, and BB had to be scum, he was least likely to be the isolated townie of the bunch, from direct and indirect evidence. Perhaps it's better to say that "It's least likely that Goat and GIEFF are scum while Birthday is town."
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.
I'd definately like to hear more from them. Ting doesn't strike me as scummy so much, considering that his lack of stances coincides with his lack of posts. I'm only giving him the suspicion of being a lurker at this point. Qwints, though, really ought to explain where his suspicion of Panzer/Mykonian went. It seemed like he came in strong against them.
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)
I REALLY don't like this. He suddenly says BB is scummy if GIEFF is town, but he buys his reasoning against GIEFF, and says that he considers it validation. He then says he would possibly vote me, though he doesn't find me scummy, and that he suspects BB only if GIEFF isn't scum, yet he also says that he doesn't suspect Panzer entirely because he thinks GIEFF is scum. That makes no sense. If GIEFF is town, that should implicate both panzer and BB.

Mykonian's next post; I could have sworn Mykonian agreed that Panzer lied.
Mykonian wrote: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.
Why is Goat absolved from this?



Here is where I begin my journey to read Panzer.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Goatrevolt
Pond Scum
Pond Scum
Posts: 2421
Joined: May 17, 2008
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Post Post #855 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:35 am

Post by Goatrevolt »

Zilla wrote:On GIEFF/Dourgrim being town, you're either not seeing what I'm saying or choosing to ignore it.
I see what you're saying, I'm not ignoring it, I just have a hard time buying it.
Zilla wrote:I didn't count his opinion on Panzer
Why not? GIEFF v. Panzer was the predominant case in the game at that point. GIEFF/Dour may have been the most discussion dominating, but neither of them were really "sold" on the other as scum, and they were kind of just arguing without actually pushing the envelop.

Panzer had the biggest wagon, which GIEFF was pushing. There was GIEFF v. Mykonian, which branched off as a result of GIEFF's push on Panzer, etc. Why was the progenitor of the biggest wagon in the game not "count" worthy?
Zilla wrote:I didn't even know he had anything on BB.
Post 381. You questioned him on how his stance on BB related to his opinion on Panzer. Apparently, that stance on Panzer doesn't count, and you didn't know he had one on BB, though.
Zilla wrote:I said he HAD been suspicious of Panzer, but he dropped that and instead focused on Dour, and Dour focused on him. I said this already.
You may have said this already, but it's not true. He didn't "drop" his Panzer suspicion at all.
Zilla wrote:I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."
And then you could lynch me for lying or distorting the truth or what have you. Do you seriously think I can get away with claiming it was "an old opinion" when I directly linked to that post in response to a question asking me point blank: "what is your
current
stance on Panzer?" And then, when you asked me 3 more times, I responded "That opinion is my current opinion." If I could somehow get away with saying "it was an old opinion" after all that, then I must have godlike manipulation powers.

I don't buy this explanation, at all. You know this is weak. When I asked for your current stance on Birthday, you exclaimed it was obvious and linked back to an earlier post. Why the double standard?

Quite frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read 295. If you had actually looked through that post to see my opinion on Panzer, you would have found it. My guess is that you glanced at the post, saw that it was the one where I had elaborated on Post 240, and then just went straight to 240 without actually reading it.
Zilla wrote:
Goatrevolt wrote: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?
Partially because he was viewed as mutually exclusive scum at the time (I didn't see your attack as a bus job at that point) with an also high-chance of being scum, and I didn't like that contradiction existing. If it turned out that he was scum (which, independent of his connection to someone else I felt was scum), I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on you. The other part was because it seemed like nobody was seeing my points, so my vote wasn't accomplishing anything being the solitary vote on you. I still felt you were scummy, and when you drop Birthday at L-2, something looks fishy.
You are selectively looking at half the picture. You keep ignoring the fact that I had just finished a giant case on you. You keep saying stuff like "I unvoted Birthday because Zilla voted him" which completely ignores the mammoth posts where I expressed my suspicion of you.
Zilla wrote:Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.
I'm not a lynch candidate because I haven't been scummy. You've slung a lot of mud at me, but none of your points really carry any weight, because they aren't based on truth. You may try to argue that I haven't been accountable because I gave a link to an opinion rather than retyping out said opinion, but the rest of the game can easily identify that it's a weak argument.
Zilla wrote:The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.
Again, see above. I was sincere about wanting to lynch Birthday. If I wasn't sincere about a desire to lynch Birthday, I would not push the case nearly as hard as I did. That makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is trying to bus a scumbuddy.
Zilla wrote:Later, I consider exactly
why
you were pursuing him all day and suddenly drop him when I climb on, and I come to the conclusion that you honestly did intend to lynch him until I jumped on, which made me think you got nervous when I mentioned that lynching Birthday would give more information about you. If Birthday was scum, that'd partially absolve you because, if I was right in thinking your intention to lynch him was sincere, you would be doing that from a town mindset. I could have been wrong about that though, hence "partially," since nothing is certain. If he was town and you were sincere about lynching him, that really makes me think you were knowing scum that jumped ship when you realized your accountability. If he was town and you weren't sincere, heck, no matter his alignment and you're not sincere, you're obviously pulling something scummy.
Two problems here:

1. This starts from the assumption that I am scum. You are trying to justify how my actions make sense in this scenario, but you are starting from the initial condition that I am scum.

2. As I said before, you ignore half the picture. You're trying to fit how my actions make sense based on Birthday alone. You ignore that I dropped Birthday and went to you because of a giant case I just outlined against you.
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #856 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:51 am

Post by Zilla »

Panzer strikes me as protown all the way up through post 17; his analysis is the valid part of the SK argument (which he later called me scummy for "double speak" about, though it was my fault for not being clear).

Post 17, though, contains the "I didn't realize it was a joke" despite all his previous posts indicating that he knew it was a joke.

This bugs me:
All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.
"attempt to scumhunt" is kind of a strange phrase to use here, and this entire phrase is kind of strange. It's possible that he's only "attempting" to scumhunt to put on a show, and the notion that his only option is to ignore the actual cause of the hole and instead try to scumhunt to provide an image of towniness seems like an option only available to scum.

This post seems dodgy, how he is suddenly critical of Spring picking stances. THIS is what deflection is, I have no idea what operative definition Goat's been using, but this is where Panzer goes "That's nonsense... and hey, look over here!"

There's an argument on this phrase:
Panzer wrote: I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies
I don't see this as a slip at all, but his reaction to it is kinda strange. He says that he didn't want to type out Dejkha's name. I don't get that feeling at all; he's trying to make a point that SL might either not be reading, or she might be mafia looking for easy town targets. Using Dejkha there renders his accusation somewhat null. His reaction, saying that it wasn't a slip, could be mafia paranoid that they did actually commit a slip and trying to smother the fire before it burns out of control, despite not actually having slipped in the first place.
Panzer wrote:Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him slips were minor tells and simply told him I'd just be keeping my eye on him. Regardless of the debacle afterward, you're blowing an IGMEOY out of purportion in a way that is leading me to believe you are rolefishing scum. FoS:Gieff
This also bugs me; apparently his vote on Mykonian wasn't serious, despite earlier claims that it was. If he was originally serious, this could be a scummy retraction when he sees that his push isn't going anywhere. If he wasn't serious, he and Mykonian could be scum buddies.
Panzer wrote:Now on to 240, specifically the scum slip part of Goatrevolt's posted. I felt it was huge in terms of scum slips. It was one that slapped me across the face. It has nothing to do with whether or not scum slips are a big or little scum tell. In regards to "I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing" I believe I posted that page 2. Page 2, a scum slip IS a big deal. Page 9-10, less so. The reason scum slips are a weak tell is actually being largely displayed in this thread. First of, you can read a post several different ways. Second, the context of the post can change from your first look and your second look. Third, it could largely be semantics issues in which I think a lot of my "slips" That GIEFF has pointed out I believe are.
**********************
* THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!! *
**********************
Panzer no longer buys slips, he says that Mykonian's slip is actually valid because it is early in the game, but later, he says that he doesn't see Mykonian as scummy, and he also says that his vote on Mykonian was not serious.


Wow, as soon as I replace in, he drops in scumhunting, activity, and accountability. Half of his posts are prior to my replacement.

Here he says he can't see Mykonian is scummy.
Yes GIEFF because I don't see how Mykonian is scummy. Also I don't understand why you do.
This lends credence to the idea that he and Mykonian were partners, and his initial vote on him was not serious.

Here he outlines his case on me, based on either misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If you read my quotes without his comments, they should make sense. I say that I acknowledge that the first person to mention a serial killer in a closed game on day 1 might be the serial killer, and, because it's a valid point, I use it in my case. He says it's scummy to say that the argument has gotten out of hand, even though it's base tenet is valid, and use the perfectly valid part of the argument as a point. I dislike it.
Panzerjager wrote:@Dour, Yes I understand, I don't agree, but It's a difference of opinion. I believe I've been actively contributing to this game. I have raised some valid and even original at the time points as of late. I don't find anything wrong with my one liners.
Haranguing me over using the SK thing in my argument is the only thing he brought up for a while, it's easy to see when you read him in isolation.

In fact, he says nothing of interest other than demands for me to claim and asserting that I'm "obviously scum" (parroting Goat) the whole time, until his latest post.
Panzerjager wrote:@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.
Huge FoS:GIEFF
Not only did he miss GIEFF's explanation, he says my thing was a scumtell when I've already explained my reasons (many times). I think it's just a chainsaw defense of mykonian at this point.

If nobody is willing to lynch Mykonian (still preferable to panzer),
unvote: Mykonian
Vote: Panzer


His late play has been active lurking, all of his opinions past "Zilla using the SK argument in her case on Mykonian is scummy" have just been echoes of either Goat or Dourgrm, there's the inherent contradiction over whether his Mykonian vote was serious or not, and whether he actually thought Mykonian was joking or not, his suspicion on Mykonian has evaporated for no apparent reason, he fluxuates between the leading bandwagons with no stated reasons, instead referring to his old case from PAGES TEN TO TWELVE.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #857 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:32 am

Post by Zilla »

Goatrevolt wrote:
Zilla wrote:I didn't count his opinion on Panzer
Why not? GIEFF v. Panzer was the predominant case in the game at that point. GIEFF/Dour may have been the most discussion dominating, but neither of them were really "sold" on the other as scum, and they were kind of just arguing without actually pushing the envelop.

Panzer had the biggest wagon, which GIEFF was pushing. There was GIEFF v. Mykonian, which branched off as a result of GIEFF's push on Panzer, etc. Why was the progenitor of the biggest wagon in the game not "count" worthy?
Lulz cuz I'm scum, only town know exactly where everyone stands at any point. Look at GIEFF's posts, about 1/5 "push" Panzer, the rest are spent arguing with Dour.

Oh, I keep forgetting to note that you're "Extending" your case with this argument. That shouldn't invalidate this argument, but it should definately invalidate both your "case extention" argument (interstingly, one I refuted already, so you dropped and instead extended your case with this one) and your hypocrisy argument.
Goat wrote:
Zilla wrote:I didn't even know he had anything on BB.
Post 381. You questioned him on how his stance on BB related to his opinion on Panzer. Apparently, that stance on Panzer doesn't count, and you didn't know he had one on BB, though.
That was your stance on BB that he agreed with, not his own. This is all completely irrelevant to why I thought GIEFF and Dour were protown. To borrow a phrase from mykonian, you're "assuming perfect play." Just because GIEFF was pushing Panzer and echoed your thoughts on Birthday doesn't mean I couldn't list him as protown with Dour, and the fact that they were locked in struggle is not the sole condition of being town, like you're trying to sell it as. Their comments in general seemed to be from a pro-town standpont; their questions, both to each other, and in GIEFF's case, to his suspects, were genuine, and they both have a pro-town feel to them. Asking why I think they are protown, you're going to get me trying to logically rationalize why I think they are protown.
Goat wrote:
Zilla wrote:I should also address the summary thing; I didn't care that it was similar to your previous post. There are also some telling differences between the two analysis', and I wanted to make sure you stated what your current account of Panzer was. If it hadn't changed, it should be noted that it hadn't changed rather than backlinking and allowing for saying later "that was my old opinion though, not my current one."
And then you could lynch me for lying or distorting the truth or what have you. Do you seriously think I can get away with claiming it was "an old opinion" when I directly linked to that post in response to a question asking me point blank: "what is your
current
stance on Panzer?" And then, when you asked me 3 more times, I responded "That opinion is my current opinion." If I could somehow get away with saying "it was an old opinion" after all that, then I must have godlike manipulation powers.
It's so easy to just link to an earlier opinion. If I answered all your accusations only with links to my earlier arguments where I already answered them, you wouldn't have a case at all on me. You are using contradictions as your method of scumhunting. Linking to old posts without providing current opinions is the easy way to avoid creating those contradictions.

Pairing these two things, I can understand why you'd backlink instead of give your opinion as scum; you're trying to use possible contradictions to "hunt" scum, so you wouldn't want to leave those possible contradictions yourself, lest you be caught.
I don't buy this explanation, at all. You know this is weak. When I asked for your current stance on Birthday, you exclaimed it was obvious and linked back to an earlier post. Why the double standard?
I already answered this. Now I get to flip shit for linking to my megapost. I should also note here that I'm totally fine with backlinking arguments that are still valid. It's opinions that matter, because those change due to circumstances, while arguments are far more static.
Quite frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read 295. If you had actually looked through that post to see my opinion on Panzer, you would have found it. My guess is that you glanced at the post, saw that it was the one where I had elaborated on Post 240, and then just went straight to 240 without actually reading it.
I read it and they weren't your current opinions. I answered this already, and very recently.

In fact, I first address it here:
Zilla wrote: I didn't ask for a link. I asked what you currently thought of panzer. I want an original statement from you right now that you can be held accountable for on where you stand on Panzer. The only reason I can think that you continue to link to your "both sides of the fence" stance that I FOS'd you for is that you know it will be politically risky to say anything definite about panzer.
Goat wrote:You are selectively looking at half the picture. You keep ignoring the fact that I had just finished a giant case on you. You keep saying stuff like "I unvoted Birthday because Zilla voted him" which completely ignores the mammoth posts where I expressed my suspicion of you.
Do you seriously suspect town to be that unassuming that they don't think scum can manufacture this? Moreover, I still assert your entire case on me is deliberately fabricated to begin with, not to mention all the "extentions" you've put onto it. This is a WIFOM defense at best, and I posit that it's scummy to resort to a WIFOM defense because it means you thought of how to construe it as town when you did it.
Goat wrote:
Zilla wrote:Similar reasons to before; nobody seemed to read my case, and my vote was accomplishing nothing. Mykonian bugs me for his discrepencies, and at this point, I'm resigned that nothing I do will make you a lynch candidate.
I'm not a lynch candidate because I haven't been scummy.
Subjective, also, this assertion is an attempt at "repeating a lie to make it true."
Goat wrote:You've slung a lot of mud at me, but none of your points really carry any weight, because they aren't based on truth.
Glittering generality with no proof.
Goat wrote:You may try to argue that I haven't been accountable because I gave a link to an opinion rather than retyping out said opinion, but the rest of the game can easily identify that it's a weak argument.
A leading statement and a prompting suggestion, where you're leading the town to believe it is a weak argument and prompting them to "prove their worth" by "easily identifying" it as a weak argument for you, though you offer no proof yourself.
Goat wrote:
Zilla wrote:The scumbuddy accusation was from how you jumped off of him at L -2, and thinking that was because you never intended to lynch him in the first place. Scum absolving you was my stance prior to your disengage. That's what made me question whether you were sincere about your intent to lynch Birthday.
Again, see above. I was sincere about wanting to lynch Birthday. If I wasn't sincere about a desire to lynch Birthday, I would not push the case nearly as hard as I did. That makes no sense from the perspective of someone who is trying to bus a scumbuddy.
That is exactly the kind of WIFOM argument scum would want town to buy. If there's any time someone defends themselves by saying "There is no way scum would do this, it's too scummy," it's a WIFOM situation. Scum are capable of doing anything, they can even be the most vocal proponents for lynching their don on day 1. It makes sense from the standpoint that you would do it to gain reputation.
Goat wrote:1. This starts from the assumption that I am scum. You are trying to justify how my actions make sense in this scenario, but you are starting from the initial condition that I am scum.
How is this different from what you're doing to me? I always hunt scum by taking a player and assuming they are scum and seeing how well that theory holds up to scrutiny and evidence. If I start with the initial condition that you are scum, and the evidence supports it, there's valid reason to assume that theory is right.
Goat wrote:2. As I said before, you ignore half the picture.
You're trying to fit how my actions make sense based on Birthday alone.
You ignore that I dropped Birthday and went to you because of a giant case I just outlined against you.
This is the exact same thing as 1, why are you trying to make two separate points that are the same thing? I also don't understand the underlined sentence. I'm investigating the possible motivation for the disengage taking into account a fabricated case and suspicious timing. This is about leaving Birthday when he was at L-2, regardless of his alignment.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
mykonian
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
User avatar
User avatar
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Posts: 11963
Joined: August 27, 2008

Post Post #858 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:41 am

Post by mykonian »

Zilla wrote:
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)
I REALLY don't like this. He suddenly says BB is scummy if GIEFF is town, but he buys his reasoning against GIEFF, and says that he considers it validation. He then says he would possibly vote me, though he doesn't find me scummy, and that he suspects BB only if GIEFF isn't scum, yet he also says that he doesn't suspect Panzer entirely because he thinks GIEFF is scum. That makes no sense. If GIEFF is town, that should implicate both panzer and BB.
you are right, I should reread Panzer, I've got too much in my mind that he is town.
Mykonian's next post; I could have sworn Mykonian agreed that Panzer lied.
Mykonian wrote: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.
Why is Goat absolved from this?
I had the feeling Goat didn't tunnel that (in the past)[/quote]
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
User avatar
PJ.
PJ.
Hell in a Cell
User avatar
User avatar
PJ.
Hell in a Cell
Hell in a Cell
Posts: 4601
Joined: January 5, 2007
Location: somewhere better than you =*

Post Post #859 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:45 am

Post by PJ. »

ZILLA, I was the first to bring that up, how the fuck did I echo it? I brought it up 4MINUTES! after you posted it.

@GIEFF in post 805 you post 2 parts of one post but you leave out the part where I say I am reading the thread as I am posting so these are my initial reactions. So yes, I said B_B was scummy but the zilla replaced in and did far more scummy things.

Then the second "contradiction" again was NOT a contradiction. I said she convinced me that she wasn't being all that scummy then she jumped on Mykonian(thusly contradicting herself and everything that she had posted in the game to that point). That was 2 minutes after the 3rd quote in 805. So I didn't so much contradict myself as call Zilla out for being incredibly scummy. Calling either of these things contradictions are evidence of you spin-doctoring. You as much of a spin doctor as Zilla.
Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.
User avatar
qwints
qwints
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
qwints
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3303
Joined: September 5, 2008

Post Post #860 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:51 am

Post by qwints »

I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #861 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:08 pm

Post by Zilla »

Zilla (4): Beyond_Birthday, Goatrevolt, Panzerjager Dourgrim
Panzerjager (4): ting=), subgenius, Zilla, qwints
Beyond_Birthday (2): GIEFF, springlullaby
GIEFF (1): mykonian

Not Voting:

militant,


Here's an unofficial votecount.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #862 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:10 pm

Post by Zilla »

Panzer, you didn't even read my post. I said everything PAST your accusation on me.

You're also still voting me for using a valid reason in my vote on Mykonian, and since then, you've only commented that I've been ahead of Birthday in your suspicions (also ahead of him in votes. Any way the wind blows?) with no reasons.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #863 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:11 pm

Post by Zilla »

Where IS militant?
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #864 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:11 pm

Post by Zilla »

qwints wrote:I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer
This also doesn't explain why you switched to Birthday.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
kloud1516
kloud1516
Executioner
User avatar
User avatar
kloud1516
Executioner
Executioner
Posts: 700
Joined: May 27, 2008

Post Post #865 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:25 pm

Post by kloud1516 »

Prodding militant.
User avatar
GIEFF
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
User avatar
User avatar
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
Internet Superstar
Posts: 1610
Joined: October 15, 2008

Post Post #866 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:44 pm

Post by GIEFF »

qwints wrote:I don't find panzer's explanation of his contradictions adequate. He has consistently been fairly scummy.

unvote, vote Panzer
WOW, that is scummy.

Please, go into some more detail about why you find Panzer scummy. You haven't mentioned him once in the last 17 pages.

What has changed about Panzer besides the fact that his wagon has suddenly started growing? I don't have time to look back now, but did your vote-switch to B_B come at a similarly opportunistic time?
Goatrevolt wrote:Gieff: How many times do you generally go back and read through (proofread/edit) your posts prior to posting them?Secondly, You mentioned (and I agree) that BB/Zilla don't really fit as scum together. Yet you label both BB and Zilla as scum. How does that work?
I almost always go through at least once to make sure I didn't mess up a quote or something, cause that really kills the ability to understand the post or reply to it. Why?


I think they are both scummy. I am only operating on the "first level" here, though. I am not making nested assumptions about either of them yet. I am looking for one scum today, not two. You are right that if there is a 0% chance that they BOTH are scum, the maximum chance that, on average, we pick right between the two is just 50%, assuming B_B and Zilla are equally likely to be scum. So if another player has a >50% chance of being scum, that person becomes a better lynch candidate.

Of course, it's just about impossible to assign an accurate percentage, and if we have 3 scum, then 50% is pretty high; almost double the 3/11 random-pick percentage.
User avatar
GIEFF
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
User avatar
User avatar
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
Internet Superstar
Posts: 1610
Joined: October 15, 2008

Post Post #867 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:09 pm

Post by GIEFF »

Look at qwints' only two votes so far in the thread:

qwints votes BB. BB had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned BB at all prior to this vote (admittedly, this was just his 3rd post or so, but he had mentioned 2 other players as looking scummy). There is no new reasoning presented to justify the B_B vote, just parroting.

qwints votes Panzer. Panzer had 3 votes on him at the time. qwints had not mentioned Panzer at all in the 17 pages prior to his vote. There is no new reasoning presented to justify the Panzer vote, just parroting.


This is EXTREMELY scummy. It looks like qwints has no interest whatsoever in scumhunting; he just repeats points others have used to justify hopping on a growing wagon.

He's done this to B_B and Panzer, yet not Zilla. I don't know if this is relevant now, but once we know the alignment of any of these 4 players, I think this could be good to look back on.

FoS qwints



-----
mykonian wrote:GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town,
for simply wanting to lynch mafia
. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
do you see the difference with:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town
, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.
I have never said that Panzer voted you because you said I am anti-town.
That is the entire point, and you fail to see it. Is this the language barrier? Or are you just refusing to see my point? You are arguing that I said something, but I never said it.

Did you even read my post?
GIEFF wrote: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?
It is important to me that you understand this. Or at least try to understand this. Throughout the thread you have shown you have no interest whatsoever in even considering the fact that you are wrong about what my case entails. It is immensely frustrating. And once again, you ignore my explanation.

If it just doesn't make sense, or if you just don't feel like reading it, then say so. But I am sick of you falsely saying "LAL" over the last 30 pages, not to mention the fact that it is scummy to focus on this at the expense of any other real scumhunting (I disagree with Goat when Goat says that you have done a sufficient amount of scumhunting).


You also ignored most of my Post 822. Ignore, ignore, ignore. And continue to hammer the same stale, obviously wrong point about my case on Panzer that was 20 pages old.

You have no original scumhunting ideas, so you just keep throwing out the same one you picked up so long ago. This is akin to active lurking. It looks like you're scumhunting, but really you're just repeating the same point over and over, and ignoring subsequent explanations..

GIEFF: A
mykonian: B is wrong.
User avatar
Beyond_Birthday
Beyond_Birthday
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Beyond_Birthday
Goon
Goon
Posts: 903
Joined: June 14, 2008

Post Post #868 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm

Post by Beyond_Birthday »

Goatrevolt wrote:
Beyond_Birthday wrote:Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.
What is your reasoning behind these shifts?
Goat's indecision adds +5, but his lack of an unvote indicates he is just trying to reason through and insure that he calling to lynch correct person, -4

Gieff's post make more sense to me from a scum angle, moves up.

Mykonian's being attacked by Gieff, moves down.

These two latter shifts are about 2-3%.

However, Gieff is starting to fit his mold a bit better in later post... -1 Gieff

___________________________

You know, this is really starting to piss me off. This entire game has just been dubbed too fucking long.

We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.

I say we lynch Zilla and call it a day. I really do.
Show
I'm coming up on Infra-Red
There is no running that can hide you
Cause I can see in the dark
Town: 5-2
Mafia: 1-2-1
Neu~: 0-0
6-4-1
"quit making me prove your points." ~Phayt AKA TheSkeward
User avatar
GIEFF
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
User avatar
User avatar
GIEFF
Internet Superstar
Internet Superstar
Posts: 1610
Joined: October 15, 2008

Post Post #869 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:53 pm

Post by GIEFF »

Beyond_Birthday wrote:We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.
I figure this is a good time for me to claim. My role is "3-year-old." I am afraid of the dark, so I must prolong the day as long as possible; my win condition is to get the thread to 50 pages before a day 1 lynch.
User avatar
Zilla
Zilla
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Zilla
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 2, 2008

Post Post #870 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by Zilla »

^ OMG YOU TOO?! That's MY role!

I'm guessing BB is the boogeyman, and he's going to get us! XD
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
User avatar
mykonian
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
User avatar
User avatar
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Posts: 11963
Joined: August 27, 2008

Post Post #871 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:47 pm

Post by mykonian »

GIEFF wrote:
mykonian wrote:GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town,
for simply wanting to lynch mafia
. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
do you see the difference with:
He is calling GIEFF anti-town
, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.
I have never said that Panzer voted you because you said I am anti-town.
That is the entire point, and you fail to see it. Is this the language barrier? Or are you just refusing to see my point? You are arguing that I said something, but I never said it.
Please try to understand my point. Your vote was for the contradiction (lie) that Panzer knew I was joking, but still took the post serious enough for a serious vote. You say this isn't possible. I think it is. I was joking, but panzer thought that inside that joke, I showed that I was not interested in lynching scum. And since this is the basic point against panzer, and panzer seems to be endangered species again, I think it is good we talk about it.
You also ignored most of my Post 822. Ignore, ignore, ignore. And continue to hammer the same stale, obviously wrong point about my case on Panzer that was 20 pages old.
I didn't react on the whole post, of course. That wasn't needed. You pointed out for some points that they were not scumtells. They weren't, it just showed that I had read that. If you notice, they talk about more then one post. The interesting parts, where I think your thoughts go the wrong way, I reacted on.
User avatar
PJ.
PJ.
Hell in a Cell
User avatar
User avatar
PJ.
Hell in a Cell
Hell in a Cell
Posts: 4601
Joined: January 5, 2007
Location: somewhere better than you =*

Post Post #872 (ISO) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:44 pm

Post by PJ. »

Ok, This is fucking retarded. I suggest a Policy lynch of the next person that feeds this GIEFF/Mykonian arguement about my contradiction.

I'll recap what happen, and after that GIEFF and Mykonian should shut up or be lynched.

GIEFF says A,B, and C are scum before the game
Mykonian makes a post and votes GIEFF because he could be the SK because he wants to lynch Mafia.
Panzer votes mykonian because Mykonian should also want to lynch mafia and could possibly be SK
GIEFF asks if Panzer knew that mykonian's post was a joke
Panzer says yes
GIEFF says well it looked like you didn't
Panzer bumbles through a couple post and realizes he didn't catch it but went back a second time and did catch
GIEFF says that cognitive dissonance but I believe that you forgot whether you knew it was a joke or not
Mykonian and GIEFF argue for like 30 pages.

Ok..Now this arguement needs to stop. The above is the absolute truth. Bottom line is that I contradicted myself because I missed a joke and then caught a joke and then told GIEFF i knew it was a joke when I didn't originally know it was a joke.

Next person to get into this arguement needs to be Policy lynched for trying to hinder the town's progress in scum hunting.
Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.
militant
militant
Goon
militant
Goon
Goon
Posts: 192
Joined: January 20, 2008
Location: Europe

Post Post #873 (ISO) » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:20 am

Post by militant »

Zilla wrote:Where IS militant?
Sorry. I have not been well for the past two days and have been up to my eyeballs with coursework. I am free today so shall recap. I apologize for my absence but there wasn't a great deal I could do about it.
[b]Lady Astor:[/b] "Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavour your coffee with poison."
[b]Churchill:[/b] "Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it."
User avatar
mykonian
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
User avatar
User avatar
mykonian
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Frisian Shoulder-Demon
Posts: 11963
Joined: August 27, 2008

Post Post #874 (ISO) » Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:04 am

Post by mykonian »

if panzer really took my post serious, while it was day 1, first post, and with completely insane logic, then that was a serious overreaction.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.

Return to “Completed Mini Normal Games”