Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[GIEFF]

I'd still like to hear qwints answer. He has gone from not at all a lynch candidate to very much a lynch candidate in the past few days without a chance to try to explain himself.

qwints, here are the posts I'd like you to respond to:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 46#1515946
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97#1515997
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 64#1516864

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?

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

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.

[mykonian]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

[Dourgrim]

My daytime posting is going to be greatly decreased for the near future. Work is starting to get pretty intense, won't have much time to read/post days anymore. If this game proceeds at the same pace it as up until now, and if my work schedule stays as it is now, I may have to request a replacement. I will do my best to avoid that, but I'd rather tell you all up front. Sorry.

[GIEFF]

I would like to see mykonian in more lists. Nobody should flip opinions that quickly; going from GIEFF-is-scum and Panzer-is-town to GIEFF-is-town and Panzer-is-scum in the span of a single post. mykonian's excuse for this change was that Panzer admitted I was right, but that is completely bogus; Panzer had already admitted this, and I had already pointed out the fact that Panzer admitted this.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that mykonian changed his mind so quickly soon after I showed how flawed his case against me was.

Yet the flaws in his case were not the reasons mykonian gave for finding me to be town.



This is pretty meaningless at this point, but mykonian has become my preferred lynch candidate, so

unvote

.

vote mykonian

.


Panzer, what do you think about how rapidly mykonian changed his mind?

[mykonian]

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

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

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

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia". I thought you twisted the meaning of the sentence here. This would also have made sense as a play.

But on that you didn't react, you used the post I said was twisted in its meaning by the bolding as prove against my case. You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

For completeness, my explanation of the situation was that panzer did know it was a jokepost, but voted for be because the post showed the wrong intention (not interested in lynching mafia). That would have been normal play, would have given a serious vote, and no contradiction. I thought that explanation fitted nicely, better then yours, that assumed bad play from the start, to make it possible. Can you understand why I was convinced?

[GIEFF]

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia".

How could you possibly think that?

I quoted a post where you say "Panzer never said I thought you antitown." I said this is false, and quoted to a post where Panzer says "mykonian is calling GIEFF antitown." It's clear as day that my intention is to show that you are incorrect (whether intentionally or accidentally).

How could you misinterpret that? Also, I've already addressed this in Post 848

You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

It should have been resolved before that. What about this post by Panzer?

He said:

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

I pointed this out to you in Post 844, but you chose to ignore it.

[Beyond_Birthday]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

Maybe I miscounted on Qwints or not but, the actual count should actually have:
4 qwints (Mykonian, goat, panzer, bb)
5 Zilla (gieff militant, goat, panzer, BB)
2 Gieff (bb, panzer)

Nice counting on your part as well, neh?

[mykonian]

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia".

How could you possibly think that?

because, as I said in that post, it explained the situation without any drastic assumptions, so it was likely to be true.

You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

It should have been resolved before that. What about this post by Panzer?

He said:

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

I must say that I don't remember this clear. What he admits here, is that is was never a random vote, but a serious one. I thought it was serious because of a gut feeling on my post, not about the "GIEFF is SK" thing. And possibily, as that point is basically where we disagreed, I didn't want to let it come back in one post over and over again. I don't know about this thing, but I know I have skipped points because of that.

[mykonian]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

Maybe I miscounted on Qwints or not but, the actual count should actually have:
4 qwints (Mykonian, goat, panzer, bb)
5 Zilla (gieff militant, goat, panzer, BB)
2 Gieff (bb, panzer)

Nice counting on your part as well, neh?

sorry, seems I forgot you. I forgot SL too, she said she had already posted her top three, haven't searched for it yet.

[Zilla]

Panzer says he hasn't been lurking? Hah.

Here's his last contributing post,
and
the
posts
that
follow
contain
nothing
of
note

until this point, and the only thing he does in this is restate the same thing as his last post that had content.

back[/rul]
to
posts
with
no
real
or
original,
content
to
speak
of
even
if
we
don't
count
his
EBWOPs.
Occasionally
its
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... lf-defense

And NOW he gives another meaningful post

[Zilla]

Panzer: Suspects Zilla for using a valid point in her case on Mykonian, suspects BB for.. ??? and suspects qwints for possible connections to Zilla, already brought up by Goat.

Dourgrim, your vote is still on me. I'm assuming you haven't read the posts asking why during your busy schedule, but that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Mykonian, your defense still makes no sense, it's inconcievable. You haven't even really answered the accusation at hand, especially the one I put forward that you originally suspected GIEFF was scum for attacking Panzer and Panzer was town because he was being attacked by GIEFF.

[GIEFF]

mykonian is scum, guys. He's shown he has no interest in scumhunting. He irrationally defended Panzer for pages and pages, even after Panzer himself admitted the attack was justified.


And now he's suddenly completely reversed his position.

But mykonian, this position reversal should only be related to my case on Panzer, right? You reversed it because Panzer showed you something about my case on him that you didn't realize previously? But

this cannot be correct.

Earlier in the thread you were convinced my Panzer case was legitimate, to the point that you evenunvoted me.

And when you presented new reasons for voting me, the case on Panzer was not among them. The reasons you gave were the way I exited the Panzer case, and the fact that I voted for both B_B and Zilla. Again,

you re-voted me for reasons completely unrelated to pushing my case on Panzer

.

So why do you think I'm pro-town now? Don't these new reasons you gave when you re-voted me still apply? Or did you just prove to everybody that these "new reasons" were BS, and you never felt them to be true?

In what way does Panzer admitting my original case on him was valid negate the fact that I exited his case, or that I was on Zilla and B_B's wagon?

-----
Cliff notes:

A = blowing the Panzer case up too far
B = exiting the Panzer case
C = being on both the Zilla and B_B wagons

mykonian voted GIEFF for A.
mykonian unvoted GIEFF because he realized A didn't apply.
*time passes*
mykonian votes GIEFF for B and C.
*time passes*
Panzer proves to mykonian that A doesn't apply.
mykonian unvotes GIEFF because A doesn't apply, completely ignoring his "case-extending" B and C excuses.

You never believed B and C, mykonian.

You just said that you did (i.e. lied) as they were convenient justifications to explain your vote for me, which was obviously motivated by other reasons.

Namely, the fact that you are scum and I am not.

[springlullaby]

I'm behind again.

[Zilla]

Consider me wanting to vote Mykonian as well, though I believe he and Panzer are related, and that Panzer is also likely scum. How I wish I could vote for the pair of 'em. I'll vote Mykonian to a tie with Panzer, meaning if Myk = Panzer - 2, I'll switch.

[mykonian]

vote GIEFF

Based on assumptions, the things I have been talking about and hoping Panzer really made a mistake.

That was nothing new. The last sentence makes that clear. I hope for bad play from Panzer (that he really wasn't scum), and vote you based on that early case. You know just as me that being on wagons that are a bit shaky is not a good scumtell, and I have barely used it. I thought of it as an addition, you try to make it an important part of my case on you.

I wasn't convinced before, and you know it. I did not know which way to go. That was pretty clear. I did not know how to fit that motivations argument in with everything else.

[qwints]

1) The panzer switch was due to an increasing frustration with Panzer combined with the awareness of an potential problem at deadline.

2) I agreed with Panzer and BB's wagons but not with Zillas.

3) Saying that L-4 votes are scummy because they are less scummy than L-1 or hammer votes is an argument full of WIFOM.

[PJ.]

I certainly don't like Mykonians new tone

Fos:Mykonian

reminder to the players. The deadline is the 8th of march.

[mykonian]

I certainly don't like Mykonians new tone

Fos:Mykonian

Could you also say what is so bad about it? Or can't I defend myself against GIEFF? I think it is a good think to tell everybody what you thought, why you thought it, and why you acted that way. Where do you disagree?

[PJ.]

Your defense sucked and as GIEFF has proved you obviously lied.

[Goatrevolt]

Qwints:

Here is a serious of questions I want you to answer.

In your first content post you list Panzer and Mykonian as your top two suspects and do not mention BB. In your very next post you vote for Birthday and do not mention Panzer or Mykonian at all. Why is this?

What was Gieff and I looking for?

If you Didn't agree with Zilla's wagon, then why did you FoS her and ask her to claim?

If the Panzer vote was partially based on a deadline problem, then why didn't you mention it when you placed the vote?

Finally, you voted Panzer for being consistently scummy, but didn't explain how he had been consistently scummy. What are your reasons for thinking Panzer is scum?

[GIEFF]

3) Saying that L-4 votes are scummy because they are less scummy than L-1 or hammer votes is an argument full of WIFOM.

Not at all. I didn't say L-1 or hammer votes are scummy; I just said that they bring responsibility and scrutiny the following day. You injected the WIFOM yourself, which again is a great tactic to use as scum if you're having trouble shaking an argument on its face. B_B did it earlier, and now you're doing it. Instead of addressing your scummy behavior, you just say "if I were scum, I wouldn't act scummy." You didn't like it when B_B did it, and I don't like it when you do it.

There

is

a scum motivation for jumping on wagons at L-4 or L-3. You get to add your vote to a lynch late enough to be sure it's really going somewhere, and early enough to avoid the later responsibility and scrutiny that comes from being one of the latest to put a vote on.

I'd also like to hear you answer Goat's questions. We have 5 days until a deadline.

-----

That was nothing new. The last sentence makes that clear.

If it was "nothing new," then why did you list two new reasons for finding me scummy, and leave out your original reasons in your list of players?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you unvote me earlier?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you re-vote me?

If it was "nothing new," then why did you continue to hammer the same point after I showed you over and over again that it wasn't valid?

[mykonian]

If it was "nothing new," then why did you list two new reasons for finding me scummy, and leave out your original reasons in your list of players?

the original reasons were the part "the things we have talked about" I didn't clearly include them, but we were continuesly talking about it, as you proved yourselves

If it was "nothing new," then why did you unvote me earlier?

because I didn't know how to fit in your post in my little theory. Two possibilities: adapt the theory, or throw it out of the window. I told you my thoughtproces in that

If it was "nothing new," then why did you re-vote me?

adapted theory, hoping that you were scum that had a good looking argument (motives) that could not be proved wrong, and could only be proved right if Panzer admitted them, something I thought he would never do. Not as scum, and never as town.

If it was "nothing new," then why did you continue to hammer the same point after I showed you over and over again that it wasn't valid?

same answer again GIEFF: I never had the feeling you wanted to understand that one point, you continuesly brought up arguments that proved not that you were right on that point, although you thought you did. I have tried again and again to get us to talk about that. Well, till Panzer told I was wrong.

[GIEFF]

1. Fair enough. I don't know why you didn't put that in your player list, though.

2. What? Why are you trying to fit everything into your theory? Why don't you objectively look at the facts and then use those to create a theory, instead of trying to get the facts to fit into your pre-ordained version of the truth? This makes no sense whatsoever, and is an admission of case-extending.

3. Hoping I was scum? My argument was ALREADY proved right, as I said.

4. Which "one point" have you tried to get me to understand? The points you have tried to argue against in the past were NOT the same points I was bringing up.

[mykonian]

Your defense sucked and as GIEFF has proved you obviously lied.

If I say your complete play sucked, would anyone listen to me? I haven't lied, and saying it was obvious doesn't make it more true. If it is so obvious, show us. Saying my defence sucked is probably true: what would explain someone tunneling too much? All I can do is tell why I thought to be right...

[mykonian]

2. What? Why are you trying to fit everything into your theory? Why don't you objectively look at the facts and then use those to create a theory, instead of trying to get the facts to fit into your pre-ordained version of the truth? This makes no sense whatsoever, and is an admission of case-extending.

3. Hoping I was scum? My argument was ALREADY proved right, as I said.

4. Which "one point" have you tried to get me to understand? The points you have tried to argue against in the past were NOT the same points I was bringing up.

2. I gave two options: new theory, or adapted theory. I have reread then, to see what the most likely explanation of the interactions between you and Panzer were. What if Panzer was scum? etc. I thought the most likely that you weren't both town. After that, I could see Panzer more easily town then you, because your motives argument came quite late, and I didn't like your way of saying Panzer lied, and how that was an important part of the case. Feeled like scum used a towny mistake.

3. See above. Theory's don't give abselute truth. I hoped that I made the right decisions, and that I would be close.

4. The explanation how Panzers lie was not that obvious: the difference between a vote for calling GIEFF antitown, and a vote for not wanting to lynch mafia. I felt Panzer was slightly misrepresented and that this was part of the "mistake" in his early play.

The first explanation didn't make sense to me, but did happen, and you understood.