Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[mykonian]

I'm sorry GIEFF.

unvote

[militant]

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?

I would be willing to lynch all three of them because I am fairly certain one of them if not two are scum. In order, I would probably want to see Zilla be lynched first; after that I don't have a preferece in order between BB and Panzer.

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.

Are you serious?

What alignment is your role?
Somehow, I cannot see it being town, maybe third party but I would be surprised if you were town based solely on your role claim GIEFF.

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

I'm guessing BB is the boogeyman, and he's going to get us! XD

I'm guessing this is a joke? I ask because you can't be too sure when people are joking anymore.

[Dourgrim]

I suspect that the entire "role claim" was a joke, militant.

[mykonian]

ok, after recent changes, Panzer became more likely scum in my mind (too much talk about you?) based on early, and late play.

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

[GIEFF]

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion militant, it was a complete joke.

---------

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.

Thank you. I agree.

-------------

I'm sorry GIEFF.

unvote

There is no need to apologize. These aren't easy arguments to make or understand. I'm interested to see who you want to pursue with your vote, now that it is freed up.

------
I would very much like to hear qwints' response to my question about the similarities between his only two votes in this game.

• B_B wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.
  
• Zilla wagon grows, qwints says "this seems more about abrasiveness than scumminess." B_B was just as abrasive as Zilla; where was this excuse then?
  
• Panzer wagon grows, qwints hops on at L-4.

Very little content from qwints, just about no original points raised, he doesn't appear interested in scumhunting, and he loves jumping on building wagons, late enough to be sure they're going somewhere, and early enough to avoid the icky responsibility that comes from hammering or putting someone at L-1. Niiiiiice and comfy, those extra votes at L-4.

[GIEFF]

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

What? Why am I more likely town now? Because you have been convinced that you were misunderstanding me, or because you feel it looks too scummy to continue to pursue me for something that happened so long ago?


Sorry if you think this is continuing the argument, but I don't; I feel this is legitimate. If you focus on just one player for the majority of the game, you shouldn't drop it instantly just because Panzer tells you to.

[mykonian]

unvote

I'm interested to see who you want to pursue with your vote, now that it is freed up.[/quote]

Good that I have a weekend for that: you have the three names that are most likely to be my choice.

[mykonian]

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

What? Why am I more likely town now? Because you have been convinced that you were misunderstanding me, or because you feel it looks too scummy to continue to pursue me for something that happened so long ago?


Sorry if you think this is continuing the argument, but I don't; I feel this is legitimate. If you focus on just one player for the majority of the game, you shouldn't drop it instantly just because Panzer tells you to.

No because Panzer tells me that you were right (and he is kind of an authority, because it was all about him), and the main argument I had against you was that it was wrong: that you made the contradiction. Now this is not what happened, I have no case against you, and that's why you shouldn't be scummy in my eyes anymore.

[GIEFF]

OK, fair enough. Thanks for helping to end this, Panzer.

[Dourgrim]

Panzer's explanation makes sense to me. Also, he's not blindly sticking to the "I'm not posting until" thing. He moves down on my list.

[mykonian]

qwints, if you want to play the game, play the game please, no matter what your role is...

vote qwints

[militant]

I suspect that the entire "role claim" was a joke, militant.

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion militant, it was a complete joke.

They don't call me gullible Mike for nothing

[ting =)]

militant, ting, and subgenius have very little vote-changing. Are you more certain than the rest of us, or do you just not have as much interest in catching scum? ting's vote is still on Panzer, from post 38. That is shocking.

I'm waiting till I catch up with the whole game to cast my vote. I've said that before already. Catching up to the game is turning out to be harder than I thought though, you guys post a lot and quickly, a lot of it stuff that's already been said before.

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

How does zilla-scum make me 50% likely to be scum? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning any suspicions of me, and then this.

I did not want her to martyr herself.

I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

Are you sure about that?

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum,

then please ask people to lynch you.

Be a martyr.

If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

I find scumlinking to be a fairly useful technique early on. It certainly isn't a perfect tool, but it often comes up with solid tells.

The amount of reading in this game is just ridiculous. I don't like panzer and dourgrim's implicit claim, however, that those with a lot of content are anti-town.

I have no idea what point, if any, you're making in this post.

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?

No, I'm not interested in his lynch. I'll move my vote once I manage to read through everything. If it makes you uncomfortable that my vote is on him, I'll unvote. I'm not particularly interested in either a bb/zilla or panzer lynch. If I had to choose someone from those three, I'd choose panzer. I agree with nearly nothing BB or zilla say, but neither has struck me as extremely scummy.

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.

See above. I don't want to cast my vote until I've caught up fully with the game.

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

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 understand your point, but I've mentioned before that I'm not going to mention any particular stances until I've finished reading the whole game. I'll mention what I think of everyone then. Whenever you've asked me for my stance on a particular person or situation though, I've been more than forthcoming in giving my thoughts

up till where I've read

.

[GIEFF]

I did not want her to martyr herself. I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

Are you sure about that?

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

Yes, I am sure. Note the use of the word

IF

. It is a conditional command, meant to demonstrate that the conditional (Zilla is a townie, sure she has caught two or three scum) is NOT correct. That was my point.


As I said before:

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

She did not answer.

---

I'm waiting till I catch up with the whole game to cast my vote. I've said that before already. Catching up to the game is turning out to be harder than I thought though, you guys post a lot and quickly, a lot of it stuff that's already been said before.

Maybe an unvote is in order? People see your vote on Panzer as legitimate, and are judging his wagon in that light, not realizing you haven't changed it since post 38. Or have you since decided that your vote has merit, and you like it on Panzer?

What page are you on now?

----

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

Also, subgenius is already being replaced.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP:

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

[kloud1516]

I will be v/la until this Sunday afternoon, but farside has graciously agreed to backup mod for me in my absence. If you have any problems, contact her until I return.

[farside22]

I will be v/la until this Sunday afternoon, but farside has graciously agreed to backup mod for me in my absence. If you have any problems, contact her until I return.

What he said. I will look at the votes for you all right now.

[farside22]

Offical vote count:
Zilla (4): Beyond_Birthday, Goatrevolt, Panzerjager, Dourgrim

Panzerjager (5): ting=), subgenius, springlullaby, Zilla, qwints

Beyond_Birthday (1):GIEFF
qwints (1) mykonian


Not Voting:

militant

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

[springlullaby]

Meh, I thought farside had replaced in. False joy.

I'm currently up to lynch BB, Panzer, for previously cited reasons.

Plus qwint, militant and subgenius for lurking.

No order of preference.

@Goat, something's puzzling me. You seem awfully nice to me this game. Saying stuff like "you know this", "spring can testify to it" when it comes to your playstyle, plus the whole not wanting to lynch me for lurking. This is in stark contrast compared to the other game we share, and I think it looks awfully like you buddying up or, more nefariously, trying to manipulate me over your meta. I'll say this here, you do seem consistent with the town meta I have seen from you (1 game), but I don't like the fact that you are bringing it up constantly in the conversation.

Now, your 'working toward a lynch' is all well and good, but who exactly are you willing to lynch beside Zilla, and why?

[GIEFF]

Here are the 5 current votes on the Panzer wagon.

ting =) (Post 38)
subgenius (Post 170)
Springlullaby (Post 815)
Zilla (Post 856)
qwints (Post 860)

I also believe Dourgrim prefers a Panzer lynch to a Zilla lynch, but is voting Zilla in an effort to end the day.

Dourgrim's previous Panzer vote (Post 691)

4 of these 6 votes I have questions about.

• qwints' vote is scummy and I don't buy it. Still waiting for you to explain yourself, qwints.
  
• ting's vote is from post 38. Are you still happy with it there? And don't give me the "still reading" excuse again; you have posted in the game numerous times since post 38, and if your goal is to catch scum, you would be using your vote in that regard. And if you don't want to vote because you want to have all the information, you would not have so casually left your vote on a player that has reached L-2 TWICE now.
  
• subgenius is no longer in the game, and his vote was 30 pages ago.
  
• springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?

I would be willing to lynch either Panzer or Zilla, although I would still prefer B_B or mykonian. I want to hear qwints' answer first, too; he provides the most information if scum, I think. Zilla is almost certainly scum, and B_B/Panzer are almost certainly town.

But here is the info I think we would gain from a Zilla lynch or a Panzer lynch. A zilla-scum lynch gives us the most useful info.

Zilla-scum would implicate qwints very heavily. If qwints was also scum, B_B and Panzer would shoot up the town-list too, based on qwints' late, scummy, quickhops onto their wagons. Zilla-scum would townify Goat heavily,

And Zilla-town implicates Goat heavily, B_B moderately, Panzer moderately, mykonian moderately, and Dourgrim lightly. It townifies springlullaby and qwints.



Panzer-scum implicates mykonian heavily, B_B moderately, and I think Goat slightly. It townifies me, Dourgrim, and springlullaby.

Panzer-town implicates myself heavily, subgenius moderately, Dourgrim lightly. I don't think it townifies anybody. Maybe mykonian.


There is probably more information that can be gained via digging into what some of the less frequent posters have said, too.

[mykonian]

Panzer-town implicates myself heavily

would you please not do that? it is probably not true anyway. You would have taken an enormous risk as scum. Plus that you were right.

[GIEFF]

Well, it obviously doesn't implicate me to myself; I'm just guessing it would do that to others based on the fact that I pushed for his lynch so strongly.

Plus that you were right.

What do you mean by this? I am confused.

[Goatrevolt]

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.

For the record, I do not believe "extending a case" in and of itself is scummy. New information presents itself, which changes things.

However, on me, you were extending your case without anything new happening. You tossed a wall of points at me, I defended, and then you just tossed a new wall at me. That's vastly different than my case on you now being different than it was 10+ pages ago based on new evidence.

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.

Why didn't you state this then. This is not at all what you said. You said it was because he had no outstanding stances. If the above is to be believed, it was because of your gut call on him being genuine with his attacks on Dour, etc.

This is the same kind of dishonesty you exhibit throughout the game. You toss a ton of points at me, but only 1 of them is the actual reason for your vote (unaccountable). Now you say you think GIEFF was town because his comments were pro-town, he felt genuine, etc. but before it was simply because he was locked in a struggle with Dour and had no outstanding stances.

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.

I use a variety of methods to catch scum. Contradictions are a big thing for me because scum much more frequently contradict themselves than town do, and townies can generally explain their contradictions. Furthermore, you are really stretching here and you continue to do so.

Linking to old posts doesn't do squat towards avoiding creating contradictions. The best way for scum to avoid contradictions is to say less. Me linking to an opinion that is

exactly the same as my current opinion

rather than simply retyping it out isn't some elaborate scheme for me to avoid contradicting myself.

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.

Umm...no. This is the same BS point you tried to attack me with regarding giving a summary. You said that I was afraid to give a summary because I was paranoid about having people catch me as scum or some other crap rationale.

Do I look like the player who is afraid to post what I think? Do you think if I was worried about getting caught with contradictions or paranoid about having people "pick up on me as scum" I would post 130 times in 36 pages?

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.

My opinion on Panzer was still valid. I said the exact same thing later on when I finally caved to your ridiculousness and typed it out. You're just saying my opinion on Panzer wasn't valid over some arbitrary assignment of what is valid or not. You ask me for a current opinion, and I link to an opinion and say "that is my current opinion." What about that is invalid?

I read it and they weren't your current opinions. I answered this already, and very recently.

You clearly have an inability to read anything I say. That was my current opinion. I don't see what is so freaking hard to understand about that. You didn't even address the opinion I had in that post, so how the hell would you know if it was "current" or not.

In fact, I first address it here:

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.

You FOSed me for POST 240. I linked to POST 295! You have serious comprehension problems.

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.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. This has absolutely nothing to do with WIFOM. You kept attacking me by saying "Goat had no reason to unvote Birthday, he only did it because I voted him" when you are IGNORING my case on you and how that was relevant in my vote on you. This isn't a matter of whether or not my case was good, this is a simple matter of you ignoring facts to support your theories.

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.

Ooh, on to something here. Do you believe this is scummy?

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.

This is preposterous. This isn't WIFOM (almost nothing in mafia is), this is a simple statement of "what is more likely", and this is the exact same argument I used to note how Panzer's pressure on you made it unlikely you were scum buddies together. Scum don't want their buddies to die. Scum occasionally bus their buddies to look good. Scum rarely bus their buddies so hard as to attempt to shut out the possibilities of lynching others. That isn't WIFOM, it's what makes more sense.

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.

I think this is an awful way to play. If you start from the idea that someone is scum, then you can always find a way to justify how their actions could make sense from them being scum. Always. Although, this is fairly revealing about you, as I think a large portion of your attacks on me fall under this umbrella.

Here's why it's bad. Take me unvoting Birthday for example: You can figure out a reason why I would do that as scum. The reasons you gave for example. The problem is that it completely ignores why I would also do that as town, and doesn't take into account which is more likely. It's this chain of progression. "Goat is scum." "Goat unvoted Birthday." "Goat could possibly unvote Birthday as scum for this reason." "Thus Goat is still scum." That ignores other very important questions like "Does Goat unvoting birthday make more sense for him to do as scum or town?" Or "is it also possible Goat unvoted Birthday as town?"

Starting from the assumption someone is scum, I could go through and make a case on every single person in this game, easily.

And no, I start from the assumption people are town, and attempt to show they are scum by showing how their actions do not make sense from the town perspective. The opposite is far easier to do, but has literally no success rate. Showing how someone could possibly be scum, or how their actions possibly fit a scum mindset doesn't actually show how they are likely to be scum. Doing that will lead to a lot of mislynches, Spanish Inquisition style.

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.

No, you never took into account my case on you. The timing is only suspicious if you ignore the facts surrounding it, which is what I'm arguing that you are doing. Rather than assume I'm scum, I want you to assume I'm town for a second. Read through my series of posts during that period and tell me if you can see how I would do that as town. Because here you are starting from the assumption that I am scum, and it is easy to prove anyone is scum if you start from the assumption that they are.

----------------

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

unvote, vote Panzer

You didn't answer my question. Why did you list Panzer and Mykonian as your most scummy, and then never follow through with it? Why are you now going back to Panzer. And what about his explanation is inadequate?

FoS Qwints

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 do the same. Here's why I asked. When I was answering spring in an earlier post, I caught myself quoting her statements to Zilla, when I read through my post. I realized that I did that for a couple of reasons. First was out of habit, and second because I was frustrated, and I associate frustrated responses to me quoting Zilla .

It made me think about you calling Dourgrim "Dourscum." (And yes, I brought it up again...). If you proofread your posts to make sure you don't mess up a quote or something, then how did you miss the "Dourscum" thing?

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

How does zilla-scum make me 50% likely to be scum? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning any suspicions of me, and then this.

Not 50%. 50/50. There is a difference in meaning/connotation. What I was basically saying by that is you have almost no connections with Zilla. If she is scum, I don't have reasons to deem you more likely to be either town or scum based on that.

No, I'm not interested in his lynch. I'll move my vote once I manage to read through everything. If it makes you uncomfortable that my vote is on him, I'll unvote. I'm not particularly interested in either a bb/zilla or panzer lynch. If I had to choose someone from those three, I'd choose panzer. I agree with nearly nothing BB or zilla say, but neither has struck me as extremely scummy.

I'm a bit iffy on your position on Zilla. Here you say she hasn't struck you as extremely scummy, but earlier, you say she's not on your "most certainly town" list. What does that exactly mean?

--------

Unvote

I'm actually not sure about Zilla anymore, at least not enough to want to lynch her, which is quite the turnaround. From bits and pieces of what she's said I've been able to get a picture of her playstyle, which actually explains a lot of what I've perceived as scummy about her play.

For example, I was suspicious of her "trying to prove I was scum or pin me as scum rather than actually determine whether or not I was scum." I think that makes more sense after she explained that she starts from the assumption someone is scum and works backward. If she starts from the assumption that I am scum, it's easy to fit a theory of how I could be scum. Everything I do you can find a scum motivation for, but ignore possible town motivations.

I still think she is dishonest. I don't believe she read post 295, or she would have seen my opinion on Panzer and not erroneously attacked post 240. She was dishonest about why she had GIEFF as her top townie. I can believe the reasons she gave in her recent post, but that's not what she said originally. I just don't know if this means Zilla is scum, or this is something that's reflective of her playstyle in general.

[mykonian]

OMG Goat! Panzer is never going to read this, and think about our replacements/lurkers...

ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.

and Goat, why a FoS in this time of the day?

and come on, do you really expect someone to find the "dourscum" mistake. You just read over it, looking for obvious logical/grammatical mistakes.

[GIEFF]

It made me think about you calling Dourgrim "Dourscum." (And yes, I brought it up again...). If you proofread your posts to make sure you don't mess up a quote or something, then how did you miss the "Dourscum" thing?

This was very early in the game, and I didn't know everybody's name (as subgenius can tell you, too). I probably scanned the post and just didn't see any mistakes. Dourgrim and Dourscum look very similar when you're reading quickly to see if you messed up a quote. One big "D" followed by a bunch of little letters with an "m" on the end.


Slips are important because they reveal what the poster is thinking at the time. My Dourscum slip reveals the fact that I was thinking Dourgrim was scum. No big secret there; it was the whole point of my post.

(I wrote "Dourgscum" instead of "Dourgrim" in that latest mention, but noticed it immediately and changed it).

-------

Maybe you missed this, mykonian, so I'll repeat it:

Plus that you were right.

What do you mean by this? I am confused.