Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Dourgrim]

/confirm

[Dourgrim]

vote: PhilyEc

because he wants votes... who am I to say no?

[Dourgrim]

Apologies. My birthday was Saturday, and I haven't logged on all weekend.

B_B is being condescending. I'm not sure why, but he is. caf19 is right; that is unconducive to Town discussion. Stop it.

[Dourgrim]

Bah, I thought I was watching this topic... I'll reread today.

Thanks for the birthday wishes, Mod! Much appreciated.

[Dourgrim]

I've read the thread through a few times, and I've noticed a couple of things:

BB says in one post that he never plays the same way twice, and then later talks about his % method of scumhunting. These are contradictory, but this is minor. I'm more bothered by the "boredom" comment, although I know that's been beaten into the ground somewhat.

This brings me to nocmen, who I think is right to question active lurkers... but criticizing short posts themselves is foolish. Not everyone writes long posts as a regular part of their playstyle, and expecting everyone to post large amounts of content per post is unrealistic, not to mention difficult to read.

My suspicion right now is on magnus_orion, however. He was pushing pretty hard on nocmen there for a bit, and then when questioned himself backed off FAST, complete with apologies and phrases like "from my POV" and "I was hoping," which sound like backpedaling without conviction. Bad mojo, and worth pressing the issue on IMHO.

unvote: PhilyEc

vote: magnus_orion

[Dourgrim]

Emphasis mine. "OMG you used

polite

vague and non-committal words+phrases! Must be scum."

Fixed.

Anyway, would you rather me be condescending and arrogant, or polite and civil? Both apparently make you suspicious, afterall. Do you suspect yourself? You used "IMHO" in your last post, afterall.

fos: dourgrim

Um, what? I'm VERY OK with polite and civil... matter of fact, I tend to go after people who go out of their way to be rude as a policy because I believe rudeness in mafia games should be discouraged. And, for the record, "IMHO" isn't vague; it's an acknowledgement of the preceding statement being opinion rather than established fact. In this case, it literally translates to "In my opinion, this point is worth applying pressure with a vote."

Also, perhaps more importantly, you're condemnation of my actions is written in a manner seeking majority agreement, rather than interrogation. (otherwise I would have thought you town for the attack on me backpeddling) Do you want to figure out if I'm scum, or don't you? Scummy, IMHO. You're looking for a lynch, not for the scum. Why?

Um, what? I found something I believed was telling, and I exercised my only tool for applying pressure (a vote) and noted said fact. I didn't go out of my way to ask for others' opinions... I explained my point and use of vote.

[Dourgrim]

Oh, really? Yet you feel no desire to ask me questions? If you believe I'm scum, you should try and gather information out of me. Find the scumbuddies of mine that theoretically should go along with this belief. Besides, I wasn't saying that you were trying to look for other's opinions, but rather that you were trying to convince people of your opinion.

First of all, I

am

currently gathering information from you via this conversation. I'm learning about your playstyle, your methodology, and your reactions to suspicion, whether

you

believe the suspicion to be valid or not. You don't always have to "ask questions" to learn about other players in a game of mafia, y'know.

Also, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the "scumbuddy" mentality in mafia. I tend to look at each player's play independently, and I don't generally pair players up until I'm sure of someone's alignment... and even then, I try not to limit myself to perceptions based on pairings, but rather the reactions of each player to the rest of the players, to votes as they're placed, etc.

Finally, if you develop a theory that you believe has merit, isn't it your

job

to try and convince the other players of its validity? If not, why play the game at all? Should we all just sit around and vote randomly? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

It wasn't you admitting bias... it was the perceived lack of conviction, and your sudden willingness to back down when attacked.

Everyone

in a game of mafia, regardless of alignment, has bias... if you don't, you're a soulless robot and probably shouldn't be playing at all (see "convincing others" above). I will admit, of course, that it can be difficult to have ironclad conviction about anything this early in a game of mafia, but I believe you're better off sticking to your guns a bit more than it looks like you did. At least then no one can accuse you of being too wishy-washy later.

For now,
@Nocmen and Dourgrim: Comments on each other's play, please.

I'll reread and give you an analysis of Nocmen tomorrow, I've officially run out of time here at work for today, sorry.

As an aside, thanks to Nocmen for trying to fix the quote tags for magnus.

[Dourgrim]

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

OK, look: it's early in Day One of the game. I proposed a theory that I believe has merit, and I used my ONE VOTE to apply pressure in support of that theory. I haven't at ALL tried to "push a lynch without further investigation." Matter of fact, as far as I can tell, this IS the "further investigation" you're looking for right here. You still haven't refuted my comment about your wishy-washy stance before... you actually gave me a "fair enough," which seems to mean that you're conceding the point and agree with my assessment. How does that equate with me pushing a lynch without further investigation?

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you for suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

This:

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

-----------

Dourgrim's play in this game also bothers me, but I'm afraid I must wait before I can say anymore on this.

This pisses me off. It's a VERY thinly-veiled reference to something else current on the site, and B_B, you should know better. That's a MAJOR no-no.

-----------

Isacc: I'll try to answer your questions today... and I owe somebody an analysis on Nocmen as well. Yeesh, you guys are needy on Day One.

[Dourgrim]

OK, someone asked me for my opinion on Nocmen's playstyle before (I think it was magnus_orion, since he seems to be the one asking me all the questions)...

Nocmen is one of those players who seems to want to ask LOTS of questions without actually stepping forward and presenting an opinion of his own. This isn't necessarily scummy, but personally I find it a touch on the annoying side (see my "questions aren't the only way to scumhunt" statement before). Then, he seems to get into a sparring match with B_B regarding short posts and lurking, to which B_B responds with his flowery bleeding scene and an OMGUS vote. While I'm all about making the lurkers play the game, it's kind of an "easy way out" of scumhunting. I guess I wish he'd take a bit more aggressive of a stand somewhere instead of just constantly asking questions. This may very well be playstyle preference, however, and I don't have a firm feeling on scummy/non-scummy here.

On a side note, I noticed an inconsistency just above. Sorry for the long quote, but I don't know how to avoid it and still make my point clearly (bolding is mine):

So, do you find PhilyEc suspicious for his condemnatory reaction to your omgus? You seem to be using the tactic solely to judge Nocmen and ignoring the reactions of others.

Personally, I didn't find it overtly scummy

, but I did find it slightly weird, which is something your posts have struck me as several times. I'm still not sure whether you are more concerned with finding scum or just messing around and confusing people.

Anyway, PhilyEc continues to bother me.

It's just so easy to pull people up for something obvious like Omgus, as he did in his last post. His tone also seems quite assured ("care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?"), which makes me think he's planning to push further.

Possible scum behaviour.

<snipped to save space>

I'd say Phily is in danger of getting my vote now, and needs to address my points and make a more decent attempt at scumhunting.

It's pretty impossible to get a read on MafiaSSK, Flame (being replaced I know) or Trumpet at this stage - I would really like to get something from them before I commit.

The first part of this quote seems to say, "You thought he was scummy? I didn't think he was scummy." Then, as the post goes on, it turns into "this is scummy, that's scummy," and suddenly he's the likely candidate for a vote. Was this a contradiction like it seems at first blush, or was this you "talking out loud" and coming to a contradictory conclusion while you were typing? I get why you think PhilyEc seems scummy, and I agree to an extent, but couching it with the first part, the "it didn't look scummy, just weird" part, seems like you're giving yourself an out in case you don't get support on your theory.

[Dourgrim]

@ Dourgrim, the "I didn't find it overtly scummy" paragraph was actually referring to BB's initial omgus vote, not Phily's reaction. I guess I didn't phrase that very clearly.

OK, I can see that. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Dourgrim]

*sigh*
This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because

I

engaged

you

. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now. However, If you claim to be gathering information on me, then you should be able to substantiate your case against me, assuming it is correct.

Incorrect, and I believe a direct misrepresentation of the facts. I placed my vote on you first and you responded; ergo, I provoked this entire conversation. Just because I don't choose to investigate people through direct questioning doesn't make my methods any less valid or effective, as you have so kindly proven thus far. Trying to take credit for the conversation in order to validate your counterattack is not the way to prove your honesty.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

I use copy and paste and not the quote button on posts to make my quotes. As such, any emphasis is removed as a result of this method, and is unintentional.

Irrelevant. If you're going to quote someone's posts as "evidence" of a point you're trying to make, quote them accurately or don't bother. You could have put tags in to recreate the emphasis, and as I've already mentioned, omitting those tags changed the meaning of the quote. Another misrepresentation.

However, you dodged the question. Why did you include the comment about whether I consider your suspicion valid or not? Also, why does my opinion of the facts not matter? I'm the one being investigated, so I'd think them highly relevant.

Also incorrect. If you're my suspect, it's only logical for you to contradict what I've said. Therefore, your opinion of the case I made is irrelevant in my eyes because there's only one opinion you can logically have.

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

You misunderstood me. You included "in addition" in your intial case against me, which lead me to believe that this was an additional point of your case of my scumminess. And this "in addtion" included admitting my personal bias, implying that you thought doing so was a scumtell, which I disagree with.

OK, I'll concede this as potentially a simple misunderstanding... although if you take into consideration the above points, one has to wonder.

However, after your read on nocmen, I no longer think you are as scummy as before. I'll stop attacking you, for now, but you're still pretty high on the suspect list.

To me, this sounds a lot like someone who realizes he's getting called out for BS and is trying to backpedal, and seems like further evidence of my original case.

----------

Isacc: does the above answer your question about my opinion on magnus' "scumhunting" style?

[Dourgrim]

You really should've bothered to rewrite whatever it was you originally wrote, magnus, because this synopsis of yours didn't work.

2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit

It's NOT semantics, it's FACT. You can try to brush off your misrepresentation all you want by giving it an easy label, but what it really boils down to is this: YOU LIED, and I caught you.

3. second point"""": I'm not going to do extra legwork just because you can't make your points without appeal to emotion. Also, your points rely on pathos? + to scumminess

Wait, wait, let me see if I have this straight: you believe placing emphasis on a word is an appeal to emotion? Wow... that's almost stunningly simplistic of you. The fact is, you intentionally misquoted me, either because you're too lazy to bother putting formatting tags into a quote or because you wanted to misrepresent my post for your own reasons. I suspect the latter, which is why I pointed it out.

4. Third Point"""": If I disagree with you in one aspect, (I disagree that I'm scum), it is an Association Fallacy to assume that I disagree with you in all aspects. So no, it would be the opposite of logic to think that. + to scumminess

Go back and read the series of posts you're referencing. I said that your opinion of my case ON YOU didn't matter... I never said you disagreed with me on everything. Seriously, stop lying.

5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

Are you even reading my posts? I said that you backing off of me proves my point about your early wishy-washy backpedalling when called out on a case.

HOS

OMGUS cuz the big meanie is picking on me: Dourgrim

Fixed.

[Dourgrim]

@Dourgrim: Not really...here, maybe I need to be more specific.

Give me your opinion on this quote in particular:

I LOVE to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Mind you, I am not asking you to comment on whether you think the strategy is effective. Think of it this way: This is Magnus's claim. He is claiming this strategy. What do you think about this

claim

? (emphasis on claim)

Hopefully, I'll get an answer that will give me a solid read this time.

I think it's ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense at all, except as a note that he's going to try and lead the Town by making a particular issue such a big deal that everyone feels like they have to weigh in on it.

Furthermore, it's an actively poor strategy to take if you're Town. I've run into quite a few players on here that seem to think that pissing people off is a valid scumhunting style, and it just simply isn't. All it does is introduce emotion into what is ultimately a game of logic and analysis... and guess what? Emotion benefits

scum

, not town, because it causes people to stop thinking clearly and just pursue their perceived enemies (i.e. the people who have pissed them off) by tunnelling.

He's trying it right now with me, actually... and the unfortunate thing is, he's been trying so hard to defend himself from the case I made (and voted in favor of) that it's causing thread noise that no one else in the thread seems to want to hear. That kinda bums me out because I'm very happy with both the case I've built and the location of my vote right now, but I don't want to dictate the conversation of the thread.

Whoever it was (MafiaSSK, I believe) that said magnus is grandstanding, you might very well be correct.

[Dourgrim]

This is getting unpleasant. (Judging from your attitude thus far, your response will be to blame me for this, but you're the one using lack of tags as a scumtell.)

My goal isn't to be unpleasant, it's to force you to address what I've said directly, and as far as I can tell you have failed to do so. We'll go through this one more time.

1. Conversation requires two people. Otherwise it is merely statements. Thus, when I engaged you it became a conversation. However, we could also say you started the conversation because it was your original statement that was engaged. So it is semantics, based on how you are defining the word conversation.

I presented a case on why I thought you were scummy and voted for you. You responded with a bunch of rhetoric and a FoS. The current argument ensued. Does that sound like an accurate accounting of the timeline? Then, you should be able to easily tell who began this exchange. I could care less who you believe started the conversation... you tried to take credit for starting this exchange, and I pointed out the lie therein.

You claim to scumhunt by trying to polarize the Town on an issue. I scumhunt by analyzing each player's posts, and then using my vote to apply what pressure I can to someone whose posts indicate potential scumminess. The whole reason we got off on this "who started it" tangent was because you wrongfully accused me of not scumhunting as part of your retort to my vote. I pointed out in return that I

was

scumhunting by applying my vote on the person who I believe is the scummiest looking player in the game. You then LIED about who began the exchange.

And You're meanwhile desperately grasping at something as ridiculous as me lying about who started a conversation to call a scumtell.

Are you familiar with the "Lynch All Liars" theory? It says that pro-Town players should never outright lie in a game because falsehood creates confusion and mistrust, which are the bread and butter of the scum. Therefore, I called you out on the lie. What is unclear about this? Furthermore, why is your lie (which it looks like you admit to above) somehow exempt from LAL?

2. You have no retort to my over simpilicty? Good. It stands then. The fact of the matter is that what you were trying to say doesn't change with the emphasis, at least from what I can tell, so the only thing it has is emotional impact. Me not actively going in and putting your precious emphasis on words does not prove anything, other than that I copy and paste for quotes. Your fascination with these little details that you keep slashing away at is so desperate its laughable. I mean, are you for real? I'm scum because I didn't put tags in when I quoted you? If that isn't reaching I don't know what is.

I've already tried to explain why the emphasis changes the meaning of the post, so I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you here... but with regards to quoting tags and preserving the original posts, see my "Lynch All Liars" reference above. You can call them "little details" all you want, but there's a reason that LAL is a valid part of mafia game theory, and one that most successful players subscribe to. It doesn't take much misrepresentation and misdirection to influence people's opinions of a player. B_B up there is a shining example of this: he uses his %'s to create a false sense of legitimacy to his theories, a practice that I'm not very fond of. This game is all ABOUT details, magnus, and the sooner you start to realize that, the better.

3.

Also incorrect. If you're my suspect, it's only logical for you to contradict what I've said. Therefore, your opinion of the case I made is irrelevant in my eyes because there's only one opinion you can logically have.

My response is that this is not logical. It is association fallacy. Which means that your reasoning is flawed, so you need to go about another way of proving that my opinion of your case doesn't matter, which I say it does, because I'm the one being investigated. Actually reading this again, there is more fallacy, "there is no alternative" is a special case of false dichotomy. So yes, I hold an alternate viewpoint to you in one respect, but my opinion on your other veiwpoints still matters.

Yes, your opinion of my other viewpoints matters, I completely agree with that. However, that's not what I was saying at all, nor have I said that in any way, shape or form in this thread. What I

actually

said was that

your opinion on the case I made about your scumminess was irrelevant to the case itself

, because your opinion on the case itself was obvious. I have never once said that your opinion on everything else didn't matter. If you disagree, quote one post where I say that. Otherwise, stop lying.

In other words: I will not necessarily contradict what you've said in all respects, so it is illogical to think that I would. So your basis for ignoring my opinions on your case has no grounds.

This is irrelevant, see above.

4. Once again, saying "OMG you think there's the possibility of Me (as in Dourgrim) being town, as opposed to thinking me (dourgrim) scum, so you (magnus) must be scum, since you're backing off!" after I say a post made me think you were less scummy is like saying I'm not allowed to change my mind, because doing so would be a scumtell.

You're certainly allowed to change your mind in a game of mafia. If you weren't, we'd all just stick with our random votes, and this game would completely suck. However, this is twice this game that you've come out with very aggressive (but not necessarily strong) arguments and subsequently backed down (or changed your mind, whatever you want to call it) when someone starts to put up a fight. That doesn't look like "changing your mind" to me, it looks like backpedalling... there is a difference, although you may consider that just a "detail" not worth considering.

Also telling me to "go back and read your posts" if I'm misunderstanding you is not the best way of going about correcting me. So if I'm misunderstanding, you should explain where I'm misunderstanding you, since the words in the posts won't change unless the mod edits them, believe it or not, so I'll read them the same exact way, since they are the same exact words, in the same exact order, with the same exact meanings in my POV.

Dude, I have been explaining it to you. I'm sorry if I haven't been specific enough for you, but I've been doing the best job I can of spelling out exactly where you're wrong, exactly why I'm suspicious of you, and exactly why I'm voting for you. Have I been somehow ambiguous?

[Dourgrim]

Dourgrim -42%- His play style has rubbed me the wrong way, and his logical fallacies are too numerous and too...foolish for the Dour I know.

Please provide a link to a completed game you and I have both participated in.

No? Can't find one? Maybe that's because

there isn't one to find.

You don't know me, B_B. I'm marginally flattered that I've somehow gotten the answer to life, the universe and everything as a % by your BS scale, but don't try posing as someone who has any idea about me and my playstyle. You're trying to legitimize your half-assed % analysis, and you're trying to use me to do it because of my debate with magnus.

If it weren't for magnus' lying, you'd be getting my vote.

FoS: B_B

[Dourgrim]

Really, I'm not even voting you, haven't been since my random vote, and you're freaking out.

Actually, I'm not freaking out at all, and I apologize if I've come across that way to you. I'm just trying to explain (perhaps a bit too emphatically for your tastes) what I've been trying to say the entire time. Nothing personal here... I believe you lied, you say you didn't, and we'll agree to disagree and let the other players make what they will of our debate. Fair enough?

And, for the record, the fact that you're not voting for me while spending all this time giving me HoS's and FoS's and arguing with me also comes across as somewhat scummy to me. You seem to be trying to cast suspicion on me while preserving deniability for future use. "I was just trying to see how he would react, but I never actually voted for him, it's not my fault!" See what I mean?

Your stance on LAL (I'm not going to keep quoting in an effort to keep thread noise down): I guess I'm not really surprised to hear that you don't support LAL, considering the accusations I've made up to this point.

RE: how your lies are detrimental to the Town: because I believe they misrepresent me in an effort to cast suspicion on me, and because I believe misrepresenting facts to help bolster a weak case is inherently anti-Town.

I genuinely am OK with agreeing to disagree on these points as respectfully as possible... but then I'm also OK with leaving my vote right where it is.

[Dourgrim]

I find it interesting that B_B has ignored two separate posts from me that were directed at him. However, the meaning of both of those posts has now changed, since the game he was alluding to previously is now finished and can therefore be referenced without cheating.

How precisely is my playstyle so much different in this game than it was in the other, B_B?

[Dourgrim]

Why not ask me directly? Seems like you're trying to insue suspicion even before you get your answers.
Anyways, I just finished Mass Effect, hence the effort appearing out of the blue, twas an awesome game.

Because you are a biased source.

This looks like hypocrisy to me, based on my statement earlier that magnus' opinion on my case against him didn't matter (and his subsequent "of course it matters" argument). Just sayin'.

[Dourgrim]

(Posting this in all my games)

Probably won't be checking the boards from now until sometime Monday. Easter and whatnot... not to mention putting the finishing touches on the gaming convention I'm helping run in two weeks (http://www.gaminghoopla.com, if you're interested), planning my wedding, and getting ready for surgery next week. Bleh.

Anyway, see you all Monday!

[Dourgrim]

First of all, I hope everyone had a great Easter weekend.

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

[Dourgrim]

@Dourgrim: Hey, scum, do you have anything to say about players who are not me? Afraid of boxing yourself into a corner from your comments earlier on?

HOS: Dourgrim

Spin-doctor much? I haven't provided much analysis on the other players, I agree, but that's because I think I've presented a pretty good case on you that you still haven't refuted to my satisfaction.

You're a liar

... why should you (or your BS accusations) be trusted?

Your last post is my favorite scumtell. You're happy with your vote because it is against town, and you feel its been legetimized by someone else's comment. I am reasonably confident you're scum now.

No, I'm happy with my vote because you're not making any sense, and because another player besides me has successfully pointed out a flaw in your "case" that you didn't really refute well. You've gone around and FoS'd almost everyone in this game at this point, and you haven't built much of a case against anyone as far as I can tell, let alone me. Besides, if you're so sure I'm scum, why aren't you voting for me? Get over yourself.

Dour: Your play is still radically different. Granted, maybe you need someone like GIEFF to argue with, but I think your being exceedingly passive this game. Reason?

Have you not noticed magnus up there? I was arguing with him, posting quite a bit, and the reaction of the Town was pretty much the same: ignoring us. Why continue to blather on about magnus and his ridiculous "playstyle" if no one's interested? It didn't help last game, did it? You were convinced then that I was scum, so I'm trying to keep the thread noise down in this game to reduce the distractions to the Town. I guess in that way I am playing differently than last game... but also remember, in that last game I said that my work schedule has picked up considerably, and I have less time overall for posting. I'm keeping up with the game, I'm not lurking, I just am not posting walls of text anymore.

[Dourgrim]

What do you mean haven't refuted to your satisfaction? I asked you to present the facts, and post my posts where I "lied" and show where you say I lied through emphasis, and then show how it conflicts with the facts. You never proceeded to do this. If what you claim about me is true, then you should be able to. So why don't you?

I have pointed out on more than one occasion where you've lied. To sum up: you omitted emphasis in a quote in an effort to change the meaning of the original post, and you tried to take credit for our initial exchange because you asked the first question, when in actuality it was

my

vote on

you

that provoked the exchange in the first place. Do you remember these statements being made in the thread? You flippantly dismissed them as "semantics" because you couldn't directly refute them, but the fact remains that you lied twice, and you have no defense. And now you're lying about me not proving where you lied.

Also, I'll note that you refuse to post analysis on other players. Why don't you? Your excuse is ridiculous, posting a case on me does not interfere with you commenting on other players. Unless, of course, you're scum afraid of alienating players from your wagon against me, in which case, you'd have a perfectly legitimate reason for not posting on other players as a result of making a case on me.

I haven't done a full analysis of the other players, you're right, and that's something I've been trying to work up. Unfortunately, I keep getting distracted by you. Perhaps I should just start ignoring you, since you seem to be ignoring what I actually say in the thread (I assume because it doesn't fit into your neat little pigeon-hole preconceptions).

As for a case against you, you did something, which I already explained, and as a result, I think you're scum. And I'm going to continue to think you are scum until you do something that makes me change my mind.

If you're going to force me to repeat my case again and again in the thread as to why you're a liar, you could at least have the common courtesy to return the favor by clearly and concisely presenting your case against me again. Or would that interfere with your "HoS"-ing of the rest of the players in the game?

I will attempt to post an in-depth analysis of every other player in the game within the next 24 hours, if for no other reason than I'm sick of listening to magnus babble.

[Dourgrim]

First of all, I hope everyone had a great Easter weekend.

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

So you're using others reasoning as a means for your votes?

No, I used my own reasoning (which has already been discussed ad nauseam) as a means for my vote. Walnut's observation just cemented the validity of my case in my mind.

Dour: Your play is still radically different. Granted, maybe you need someone like GIEFF to argue with, but I think your being exceedingly passive this game. Reason?

Have you not noticed magnus up there? I was arguing with him, posting quite a bit, and the reaction of the Town was pretty much the same: ignoring us. Why continue to blather on about magnus and his ridiculous "playstyle" if no one's interested? It didn't help last game, did it? You were convinced then that I was scum, so I'm trying to keep the thread noise down in this game to reduce the distractions to the Town. I guess in that way I am playing differently than last game... but also remember, in that last game I said that my work schedule has picked up considerably, and I have less time overall for posting. I'm keeping up with the game, I'm not lurking, I just am not posting walls of text anymore.

Honestly, itseems like you have a personal issue with Magus' playstyle. He seems like hes making reasonable discussion, and is definitely pushing towards it more than you have been.

I do have a serious issue with magnus' playstyle because I think it's scummy, or at least non-helpful. Whether everyone wants to agree with me or not, or whether you believe they're important or not, he made false and/or misleading statements in the thread, I caught him, he denied it, I caught him again, and then he played the "semantics" and "interpretation" cards. Supposedly my "interpretation" of what he did isn't valid, but somehow this is:

My case against you is as follows:

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

I consider this a scumtell. Scum like to lean back, and say, "oh this person said this. I agree, thus, my vote on this other person is legitimized" They want to be able to vote for people they consider to be mislynchs, and then make sure their vote on the person is valid from a town perspective.

And then I suspect that your tunneling on me is an attempt to avoid making definite statements that you'd have to change on later dates to get your mislynches. (Which is why I look forward to your points on other players)

Twice in the above, he's interpreting what I said into what he believes it to mean, but this is given false legitimacy by the use of the word "scumtell" (which is in and of itself crap, might I add). How is this different than my interpretation of his falsehoods?

You yell at us for ignoring you, when you ignore everyone else?

I wasn't yelling at anyone for ignoring me, where did you get that from? I was pointing out to B_B that his statement that I need someone like GIEFF to argue with is ironic, considering I was having a very similar argument with magnus when he said it.

I will attempt to post an in-depth analysis of every other player in the game within the next 24 hours, if for no other reason than I'm sick of listening to magnus babble.

Good, I want to see this.

I'm doing the writing on this in Word when I have free time at my day job (it's LONG), but those moments are few and far between. I apologize for the delay, but as I've said before in this game and others, my free time has become quite limited at work, and so putting together long posts with that level of analysis can be quite challenging for me. I'm not ignoring you, I'm not refusing to do it, I'm just struggling for the time to do it. Bear with me.

[Dourgrim]

They haven't been proven to be nonexistant, you just denied intent. There's a difference. (And you're ignoring the point about my vote beginning the exchange between us. That's the second of my points as to why I believe you lied.) Like I said, it doesn't matter whether everyone else believes these points to be noteworthy or not. What I

didn't

say before (because I would've thought it was obvious, but apprarently it's not) is, it's whether they believe that

I believe

them to be voteworthy that matters.

Furthermore, at no point in the above quote do I use the word "implied" (or imply such, ironically enough). I haven't shifted my points at all, dramatically or otherwise. I believe you're a liar, and I believe you intentionally misrepresent things to back up what is ultimately a weak case on me.

And, as if all that wasn't enough,

I'm

still

not trying to get you lynched

, via policy or anything else. I'm defending myself from your crap argument as to why my vote is scummy by explaining (over and over again) why I believe my reasons for voting you are valid. Again I ask: why are your interpretations of my posts valid, but my interpretations of yours not? You have no more "proof" of intent than I do (you're using phrases like "I consider this" and "I suspect that" in your arguments, hardly empirical proof), except that you're overly fond of the catchphrase "scumtell" as a way of legitimizing your vote, whereas I just called you a liar.

Now leave me the hell alone for a bit so I can provide your precious analysis of the other players. You keep forcing me to point out your misreps and other BS in your posts (because I'm not going to sit back and let you get away with them) instead of writing my super-long post, and it's starting to genuinely piss me off. Go away, go yip at someone else's heels for a bit, OK?

[Dourgrim]

Sorry, guys, I had surgery Friday and have been recovering, and I forgot to post in V/LA to that effect. I'm (kinda) back but still recovering, I'll do what I can to keep up.