Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[na85]

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

1) Not really, no
2) Not really, no

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

What's distracting about town trying to create links is that scum will also try to create links; either to set up a mis-lynch later on or to appear innocent by association.

I think I misread DDD's question #2 above so I'll clarify.

I read 2 as "Does my post not help the town to get more information?"

But upon re-reading, I think what he was saying was "Is it not beneficial to the town to have more information?"

So my answers are

1) No
2) Yes

Soylent Green....IS PEOPLE!

ZEEnon - 2 (Nuwen, Mizz.Mafia))
Fishythefish - 2 (JereIC, pacman281292)
Debonair Danny DiPietro - 3 (DraketheFake, freeko, JereIC)
Light-kun - 1 (na85)
freeko - 1 (Fishythefish, Debonair Danny DiPietro)
pacman281292 - 1 (ZEEnon)

Not Voting - Amished, Light-kun

12 alive, 7 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 205)

[Fishythefish]

Mizz_Mafia's replacement should be treated as if she never existed.

You think so? I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

I think you should judge a role by all the players who play it.

Indeed. I only meant that, in this instance, I think it's clear than Mizz_Mafia was genuine in her lack of understanding of the game, and that there is nothing to judge the role by so far.

[ZEEnon]

Well: the problem on "quote walls" is that LIKE THE 80% OF ITS CONTENT is just quotes. That creates extra space, extra read, and its annoying. Also, it's usually a sign of the beginning of a "bickering war", and that really hurts.

Another post that barely adds anything to discussion.

Vote: pacman281292

.
Perhaps this will help you start making more meaningful posts.

[ZEEnon]

EBWOP:

Unvote. Vote: pacman281292 .

[freeko]

Can you clarify?

Sure can. Blatantly stolen from dictionary.reference.com

quan⋅ti⋅fy   /ˈkwɒntəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwon-tuh-fahy] –verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
1. to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of.
2. Logic. to make explicit the quantity of (a proposition).

3. to give quantity to (something regarded as having only quality).

I guess a better way of wording my question would have been to use qualify instead of quantify.

[JereIC]

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

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

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

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

In post 193, DDD’s not really clarifying or defending what he’s doing, though, he seems to be subtly changing and adding to his original arguments to try to make them less suspect. For example, in post 103 he says hammers on a bandwagon are most suspect, but in 177 he has narrowed the group of suspect wagoners to only dubious hammers, while expanding to votes that were initially random and those joining the wagon with sub-standard logic. Also, he’s gone from saying that post 109 was “useless and distracting” in post 127 to saying it was actually helpful in post 177.

Having to twist what he wrote previously is scummy. It indicates that DDD realizes that he made statements that were scummy by themselves and is trying to rewrite them to be less scummy. It also indicates he's more concerned about getting out of suspicion than in building an argument; he ends up undercutting what he has said already to appease his accusers. For this, and the reasons I noted in post 151,

Unvote; Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

[pacman281292]

Mizz_Mafia's replacement should be treated as if she never existed.

You think so? I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

I think you should judge a role by all the players who play it.

*agrees with this guy*
EVERYONE that played with a defined role must be considered while analyzing. If you don't do so, you will find little possibilities of outing scum, if the replace-in is very good at playing as scum.

[Light-kun]

The cow thing was approximately 1/8th of my post's point and was generally tongue in cheek.

Take note, kids, this is what a weeaboo looks like when he backpedals. My vote's staying on you, douchebag.

I just realized this post exist reading from page 6-7 and I failed to acknowledge you attacking me. Is calling one who uses a dancing cow for an avatar really offensive to you? I suppose I've being seeing a lot of overreaction from you, but you never actually asked me to not call you cow. (And if you did, do tell me where, because I have surely missed it.)

Having to twist what he wrote previously is scummy. It indicates that DDD realizes that he made statements that were scummy by themselves and is trying to rewrite them to be less scummy. It also indicates he's more concerned about getting out of suspicion than in building an argument; he ends up undercutting what he has said already to appease his accusers. For this, and the reasons I noted in post 151,

Unvote; Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

QFT.

I should do an analysis of him soon, but not in the mood today.

[orangepenguin]

Activity Check:

Nuwen - Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:59 am
Mizz.Mafia - Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:07 pm
Debonair Danny DiPietro -Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:33 am
DraketheFake - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:48 pm
na85 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:07 pm
Fishythefish - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:16 pm
ZEEnon - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:30 pm
freeko - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:24 pm
JereIC - Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:20 am
pacman281292 - Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:13 am
Light-kun - Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:09 pm

Prods: Nobody!

Still looking for replacement for Mizz.Mafia.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

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

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

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

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

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

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

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

[Nuwen]

DDD's responses, while not particularly townish, seem like they're coming from an over-responsive town player interested in proving himself not to be scum. We can WIFOM the intention behind that all day, but I'm not going to overvalue the defensive quality of his posts - being defensive is alone not a scum tell.

(speaking of which, is there such a thing as town-tells?)

There are valid town tells, where "valid" means "right more than random chance," not "always right."

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

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

This is my standard caution against applying wiki axioms without thinking. Some are obvious common sense: reasonless voting, rolefishing, misquoting. But the meta making fourth, fifth, and hammer votes more suspect than earlier wagon votes is long outdated - most of the Wiki's theory pages were written half a decade ago. Jeep noticed that wagons built around valid anti-town play were constructed by pro-town players and then rushed to lynch by scum buddies parroting the earlier cases. Because this site is the product of multi-generation wiki metas, every wagon needs to be examined independently. Blindly placing more gravity on later votes is foolish.

I'm glad Mizz.Mafia was replaced. Clueless estrogen on the Internet makes me want to tear my well-conditioned hair out. I don't think her play reflected on her role, as she was obviously flailing about, but I wouldn't immediately discount it.

While I've seen ad-hom attacks like "weaboo" eventually drag out information, it's usually the result of a frustrated player throwing the game, giving up, and eventually being modkilled for outing his/her scumpartners or quoting a role PM.

Unvote

, by the way.

[Fishythefish]

I entirely agree with Nuwen that being defensive is not a scum tell. Defense is a necessary part of the game for a townie, when you are being attacked, and DDD's lack of scumhunting is entirely unsurprising.

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

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

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

I agree that this would be nonsensical. However, perhaps you weren't trying to be less subtle, but made some mistakes and made things worse trying to get out of them? Just because you do something well once doesn't mean you will be able to repeat it in another game. Your argument can be summarised "when I'm scum, I'm not scummy. I'm scummy- therefore I am not scum". This is not a valid explanation of why you are scummy. I feel you are trying to use dodgy arguments to justify your play.

JereIC also makes very good points about your modifying of things that you say later.

unvote, vote DDD

(4th vote! Forget DDD, that makes me scum! LYNCH TIME!!!!!)

[Amished]

I think it's pretty darn hard to do some scum hunting while you're being attacked for every post you make. I'm not completely buying all of his explanations though, regarding how he's acting this game. Trying to meta yourself, and passing off to difference of playstyle isn't exactly something that inspires my confidence...

Pacman: So far (wrt my other two games) I've typically made very long posts detailing what I think of one person, or a couple, or answering other peoples questions. Because I or others might like to be clear about what they're thinking, and just have it all in one place doesn't relegate it to an annoying realm, nor is it a bunch of quotes.

Also, with your position on Mizz.Mafia's role, what do you really think we'll be able to gather from somebody who didn't know how to play, basically. She spent a good chunk of her time trying to figure out how to use the forums, let alone try to play the game in any meaningful way. Yet you still don't place forth your own opinions, and add nothing to the discussion other than complaining about long posts. Your first four posts are in RVS and talking about that (RVS), next two are complaining about walls o' text, and then your last one says that you should analyze everybody, when I haven't seen you analyze a single action or contribute to the discussion so we could analyze you.

vote: pacman281292

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right.

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

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

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

scummy

incorrect by themselves and is trying to rewrite them to be

less scummy

correct.

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

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

one

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

[Light-kun]

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

1 I have

one

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

[Light-kun]

EBWOP! Forgot this part, should go above the last post, but whatever.

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

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

This is my standard caution against applying wiki axioms without thinking. Some are obvious common sense: reasonless voting, rolefishing, misquoting. But the meta making fourth, fifth, and hammer votes more suspect than earlier wagon votes is long outdated - most of the Wiki's theory pages were written half a decade ago. Jeep noticed that wagons built around valid anti-town play were constructed by pro-town players and then rushed to lynch by scum buddies parroting the earlier cases. Because this site is the product of multi-generation wiki metas, every wagon needs to be examined independently. Blindly placing more gravity on later votes is foolish.

This is my point. Saying only the first or last votes are worth looking at is just as outdated and for this particular game, this leads to mafia avoiding those particular shots thus making town look more like scum than mafia in terms of voting analysis.

Also, Nuwen, you unvoted this post, but (and this is assuming you unvoted DDD, if not, then ignore this) you only provided a reason for defensiveness not being scummy yet failed to refute JereIC's other points. Any reason for this? (Again, I am too lazy too look up who you were voting, and this only applies if you were voting DDD.)

[JereIC]

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

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

Sorry about that, I got the posts confused. When I've got more time I'll respond to your other points.

Also, Nuwen, you unvoted this post, but (and this is assuming you unvoted DDD, if not, then ignore this) you only provided a reason for defensiveness not being scummy yet failed to refute JereIC's other points. Any reason for this? (Again, I am too lazy too look up who you were voting, and this only applies if you were voting DDD.)

She was voting for Mizz.mafia.

[freeko]

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

Is this the new "Too scummy to be scum" meta? I just dont get you. Are you going to scumhunt at some point in this game or do you thik this game is DDD and his minions? As far as I can tell you are caight scum and you are just trying to squirm as much as possible to try anything you can to get off the hook. I think instead of wiggling off the hook you just wiggled right into the noose. I would be voting for you now if I was not already.

This sideshow needs to be put to an end. You just dont get it. This isnt about DDD, its about the town finding scum. Try doing that for the first time this game and you might just be able to sway peopels opinons of you. but then to do that might mean that you would trip yourself on insude inforamtion now wouldnt it?

I have one piece of confirmed information. I win with the town.

This is also false. You know your flavor name, you know your rolename, you know your role ability (if applicable), and you know your alignment. Of course all this would only be confirmed to everyone else upon your death (assuming that roles are flipped when the player dies)

[Nuwen]

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

one

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

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

[DraketheFake]

Well sure, apparently me

playing with my content filter off

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

- Yadda yadda yadda Meta defense yadda. -

It's nonsensical.

Your last line here does good job of summarizing how I feel about the second two paragraphs, which I've also summarized. What is the bolded line supposed to mean? Your playstyle is not "different." Your playstyle is "post a lot and at length," which is nothing new under the sun. I've been suspicious of you for a suspicious vote cast for suspicious reasons, and you've been suspicious of another player for a questionable reason and he's answered with all the gravity deserved by your attack.

I'm glad Mizz.Mafia was replaced. Clueless estrogen on the Internet makes me want to tear my well-conditioned hair out. I don't think her play reflected on her role, as she was obviously flailing about, but I wouldn't immediately discount it.

I'm glad she is going to be replaced because she was genuinely in over her head and now we might have a valid contribution from all 12 of the players in the game. The standard prescription for players replacing serious non-contributing lurkers is generally "Post," which it should be easy to pick up on if her replacement doesn't do much of it.

(4th vote! Forget DDD, that makes me scum! LYNCH TIME!!!!!)

What are you doing? Did DDD ever even say that? Pointing out your behavior as "suspicious" in an attempt to head off suspicion indicates a clear lack of confidence in what you're doing and/or substandard reasons for doing it, which the rest of your post doesn't brush up against at all.

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

one

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

Ugh. I despise this kind of soft-claiming. If you're going to claim because a fourth player hopped onto your wagon, then go ahead and do it without all this maundering on. If you're going to count on everybody being able to empathize with the plight of a player who has no seeming way to get out from under the unfair suspicion created by everybody else being idiots, then best of luck to you. If you're banking on people misunderstanding your little opening line to mean that you have one

additional

piece of information, well then that's decently clever but I'm not falling for it.

Oh and this, from earlier in the same post:

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

Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you. The whole "Contribute, even if it's to vote for me!" attitude is in clear contradiction of your point further down. We understand that you think pacman's wagon has more merit than yours, but we're not biting for a reason.

(Again, I am too lazy too look up who you were voting, and this only applies if you were voting DDD.)

Would it have been so hard to open a new tab and check the most recent vote count? Instead you had to make a conditional inquiry/statement of suspicion?

This is also false. You know your flavor name, you know your rolename, you know your role ability (if applicable), and you know your alignment. Of course all this would only be confirmed to everyone else upon your death (assuming that roles are flipped when the player dies)

What kind of point is this? Are you trying to apply LAL to a clear oversimplified softclaim? Really?

[orangepenguin]

Mizz.Mafia

was very emotional lately. She would always go off alone, by herself to cry. The others were being so mean. One day, she wandered too far..and was never heard from again...some say she was captured and sent to SeaWorld, others says she was killed by sea voyagers..nobody knows for sure.

Soon after her disappearance from Antarctica..a new face arrived. By the name of

HowardRoark

. "This calls for a dance!" screamed one of the younger, more enthusiastic members of the town. So they danced..

[HowardRoark]

Howdy y'all! I am doing my re-read now. I will soon join in with the ice sliding and waddling.

[Fishythefish]

(4th vote! Forget DDD, that makes me scum! LYNCH TIME!!!!!)

What are you doing? Did DDD ever even say that? Pointing out your behavior as "suspicious" in an attempt to head off suspicion indicates a clear lack of confidence in what you're doing and/or substandard reasons for doing it, which the rest of your post doesn't brush up against at all.

This was mostly a joke, because there had been recent talk of the "4th vote is scum" meta, which I find rather absurd. It was only intended to head off suspicion directed at this vote specifically because it was a 4th vote. All votes should be treated on the explanations for them, which is unrelated to their position.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

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

1 I have

one

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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