Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[GIEFF]

I thought the most likely that you weren't both town.

I would not be so sure about that. It is quite likely we are both town. Townies can be wrong when they call others scum.

After that, I could see Panzer more easily town then you, because your motives argument came quite late

It did not "come quite late." Why do you make me repeat myself so often? It was the same argument the entire time, as I have already said more than once.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 54#1493654
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 89#1494689

This is not the language barrier, this is you deliberately ignoring me so that you can repeat yourself over and over and over again. That's not how a townie plays the game.

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.

This was never anything close to the argument I was making. It is completely, 100% irrelevant.

[Goatrevolt]

I thought the most likely that you weren't both town.

I would not be so sure about that. It is quite likely we are both town.

Why?

[GIEFF]

If I am 60% sure that Panzer is scum, then there is a 40% chance that we are both town.


I would call 40% "quite likely," and something with that high a chance of being correct should not be ignored, as mykonian did. It makes no sense for mykonian to assume Panzer is scum just because mykonian thinks I am town. Townies are often wrong.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, I am no longer making a case against you. I explained then, and that is why I explain it again, because it was part of my thoughtproces, that I didn't read your first posts as an attack on motivation, more on the objective "lie". It was part why I then revoted you, like I said then. We are repeating things, because I try to explain to you I have never had malicious intent, and to try to explain that I'm not sure scum for being wrong.

It would be scummy to assume that one of you and panzer must be scum, and then vote Panzer because you look town. It probably can't get worse. That also not what I'm doing. The fact that Panzer admits you are right, means your case against him was true, means that he is more likely scum (as that was the conclusion of the case, and the logic behind it was good. The observation of Panzers play (input) was also correct, as panzer confirmed that.) + the fact that he didn't want to end the day by action, by getting people on one person, but by saying he wouldn't react till we got further.

I don't know what your experience is, but I hate deadline lynches. Too often someone gets lynched that the majority of the town does not agree with, just because that person was the one closest to the lynch, so that town at least gets some information.

I think there are still some people who don't yet have told their top three.

[mykonian]

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

SL: you said your list was already up: it included three lurkers, do you want me to add them? (giving you 5 votes?) or is one (qwints I assume) scummier then the rest?

I need still from Ting=), Qwints, Sensfan (obviously excused till he has reread).

[GIEFF]

I didn't read your first posts as an attack on motivation, more on the objective "lie". It was part why I then revoted you, like I said then. We are repeating things, because I try to explain to you I have never had malicious intent, and to try to explain that I'm not sure scum for being wrong.

But I've explained so many times that my case was always about motivation that I can't believe you didn't notice. My case was ALWAYS about motivation. Look at all the time I spent gathering quotes in this post to show you. It should be clear as day to you that my case was always about motivation.



I hate deadline lynches too. As we only have 5 days until a lynch, we should really decide in the next day or two so that we have time for the target to claim. You can add me to the qwints list, mykonian.

[mykonian]

I know you explained, it

was

not what I read. I read things about contradictions and lies and how scummy they were in the start. Only later I read things that were about motivations.

ok, you know that is your fifth vote, eh? I hope so you are not scum

[ting =)]

Okay, I skimmed through till the end. I'm really sorry, but I'm pressed for time now. I'll come back and reread the past few pages in detail later as well as post my thoughts on everyone.

I'll answer the pending questions for now:

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.

You're missing mine. Or avoiding it.

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.

I take issue with the bold because:

Your condition for zilla being town is - she martyrs herself. Your condition for her proving she's town is her killing herself. Again:

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.

In case I wasn't clear before what my problem with this is, your choices are basically:

1. Kill yourself.
2. Admit your cases are crap.

I've mentioned multiple times why I don't like this:

1. Those are horrible choices.
2. One of the choices (kill yourself) wouldn't prove anything other than zilla is a moron who killed herself. Her proving that she's town(by dying) would no way validate her cases.

In short again, since I'm annoyed at repeating myself multiple times:

1. Telling someone, 'to prove you're town - kill yourself' is scummy.
2. [1] is pointless. Proving you're town doesn't prove your cases are right.

----

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?

I've read everything properly till page 36. Skimmed till 40. If the vote bothers you, then yes, I'll

unvote.

It didn't seem like panzer would get lynched soon, I saw no harm in leaving it on him.

---

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?

Exactly what it sounds like. She doesn't strike me as extremely town, or extremely scum.

---

top 3:

I need a reread of militant, sub and qwints before I commit to a top 3. I can't recall their positions off the top of my head.

Of the people I feel I have a relatively good read on: gieff, SL, panzer.

[Zilla]

... You felt good about panzer but your vote was on him until this point? And further, this post says nothing about why you feel panzer is town?

Your point on GIEFF holds water though, though I'm not so sure it's scum motivated instead of a poor town ploy.

[ting =)]

No. Clarification:

My top 3 out of the people I have a relatively good read on.

That's the reason I mentioned needing a reread of militant, sub, qwints - they're the people I don't have a good read on.

[GIEFF]

In short again, since I'm annoyed at repeating myself multiple times:

1. Telling someone, 'to prove you're town - kill yourself' is scummy.

You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if you realized that I was not telling Zilla to kill herself. I was demonstrating to her (and to everyone else) that her statement "I am sure I have caught 2 or 3 scum" is incorrect.

Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?

--

Look at the below question, which you may have heard a child yell back at someone who claimed they loved chocolate.

If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?

The point of this question is to show that a claim of love for chocolate (the conditional) is NOT correct, as demonstrated by the fact that the conclusion (marrying the chocolate) is ridiculous. Would you conclude that a child who asked the above question was really advocating for the chocolate-lover to marry chocolate?

Do you see the analogy between the above question and my post to Zilla?

[Zilla]

"If you love chocolate so much, why don't you martyr for it?" XD

[Goatrevolt]

Because you can't eat chocolate when you're dead.

I'd lynch Panzer before I lynched Mykonian.

[mykonian]

ehm, panzer was not in your top three...

how did panzer become scummier?

[GIEFF]

Qwints:

Please answer the questions quickly. We don't have a lot of time, and I will not let you get away with lurking your way to a deadline. You are plenty active in other games. Answering these questions should not require you to re-read the entire thread, so you have no excuse not to answer them.

We need to commit to a lynch candidate by tomorrow to give that person enough time to claim. Right now, it is between qwints, B_B, Panzer, and Zilla.

[Goatrevolt]

That was a relative statement. Panzer is scummier than mykonian is not the same as Panzer is scummier than he was before.

I'm going to go ahead and put Panzer in my top 3 and take Zilla out, though. That's more of Zilla looking less suspicious than Panzer looking more, though.

[GIEFF]

It has been over 48 hours since militant's last post, almost 72 hours since subgenius' last post (which was also just to respond to a prod). 5 days to deadline is not the time to go inactive.

Mod, can we get prods on militant and subgenius?

-----

Qwints, please answer the questions goat asked you. I need to decide between you and B_B, and I need to do it soon.

[mykonian]

SensFan Replacing subgenius

he is rereading.

[GIEFF]

Ah, thanks; I knew Sesnfan replaced in, but I forgot it was subgenius that he was replacing.

[kloud1516]

Mod, can we get prods on militant and subgenius?

I will give militant until 10:00 tonight. If he hasn't posted by then, he will receive his third prod.

[Goatrevolt]

If I am 60% sure that Panzer is scum, then there is a 40% chance that we are both town.


I would call 40% "quite likely,"

Really? 40% looks to me more like "less likely, but still possible." If there are two choices, then one is likely and the other is less likely. Calling the less likely option of two choices "quite likely" seems...fishy?

It has been over 48 hours since militant's last post, almost 72 hours since subgenius' last post (which was also just to respond to a prod). 5 days to deadline is not the time to go inactive.

February 14th was his last post. By almost 72 hours, do you actually mean over 300 hours? I'm pointing this out because I looks like you are implying that they are going inactive in the face of the looming deadline, when in reality sub has already been inactive for a long time. I'm also not sure how you could really make this mistake. Where you unaware subgenius was missing for like 2 weeks, or that he got replaced?

[GIEFF]

If I am 60% sure that Panzer is scum, then there is a 40% chance that we are both town.


I would call 40% "quite likely,"

Really? 40% looks to me more like "less likely, but still possible." If there are two choices, then one is likely and the other is less likely. Calling the less likely option of two choices "quite likely" seems...fishy?

mykonian said he was ignoring this possibility, i.e. assigning it a probability of 0%. The two choices are not the 60% and the 40%; the choices are the 40% and the 0%. 40% is quite likely, relatively speaking.

This all started because mykonian said taht he thought it unlikely both Panzer and I were town, and because Panzer looked townie, he concluded I was likely scum.

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.

Where you unaware subgenius was missing for like 2 weeks, or that he got replaced?

Yes, I was unaware. I just went through the thread looking at everybody's iso-posts, ignoring the people who got replaced. I forgot to add subgenius to the list, and I just looked at the day of the week, not the actual date.

I'm not implying they're going inactive because of the deadline, I'm just asking them (really just militant now) to contribute now, as it's important.

[mykonian]

This all started because mykonian said taht he thought it unlikely both Panzer and I were town, and because Panzer looked townie, he concluded I was likely scum.

almost. There was too much weird things going on to make it two townies that by pure chance acted wrong, I tought. That is part one.

Therefor, I didn't think Panzer town from the start of my thinking. I looked at what you and panzer posted, and tried to explain those posts as town, and as scum. With GIEFF, I could quite easily explain them if he was scum. Tunneling on one point is not a hard thing to do, and that way applying pressure on town is a good thing to do for scum. But in that story, Panzer could never be scum, seen the way GIEFF attacked him. Therefor Panzer must be town.

As you see, it is just the other way around. I thought panzer town, because I thought you scum.

[GIEFF]

Yes, and my point is that you shouldn't ignore the possibility we are both town. If you now think I am town, what does that have to do with you thinking that Panzer is scum?

[mykonian]

Partly that you didn't try to lie with your case: that means less wrong logic.

This plus the fact that Panzer told that the input for your argument was true, makes that your logic applies, makes that the conclusion is likely true, that Panzer had wrong motivations for the vote on me, and that Panzer is likely scum.

This is about 1 point against panzer, the other is the less then stunning present play.

So, the fact that you are town, makes your case more believable, the fact that panzer admitted he was wrong makes that your case was not based on wrong information.