The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[dingoatemybaby]

Vote: Percy for Mayor

Vote: DizzyIzzyB13

for reasons to complex and nuanced for me to explain.

[dingoatemybaby]

I'm unlynchable.

Can you explain if and how revealing this now is helpful to the town?

[dingoatemybaby]

I think The Fonz is mostly correct on the issue of aggressiveness. However, I believe that being too aggressive can actually stifle other lines of thinking. It may not be good town play, but the truth is that many people do not want to question the logic of a highly aggressive player for fear of coming under attack (or what they might perceive as an attack). As such, a dominant, aggressive player can lead the town down a wrongly chosen path even when other townies secretly see problems with it.

[dingoatemybaby]

I'm sure that is all true, Fonz. But people also want to protect themselves, as they know they are on their side, and that includes not wanting to be overly scrutinized. That can lead people to hold off on disagreeing with a very aggressive player.

But maybe I'm getting too far off into theory. I don't think this is a level of aggressions we have seen in this game.

@Xtomx - Why haven't you addressed questions regarding your early and unforced claim? What was your motivation? What did you hope to accomplish?

[dingoatemybaby]

I believe that when a Jester wins, the game just continues on to determine who gets second place. And since Jester's almost always "win", I think "second place" is considered by all to be the actual winner. (Please note I've only seen Jesters in off-site play).

I don't think it is worth worrying about a Jester. If X is one, it is worth getting him out of the way early just so we don't waste day after day talking about him.

[dingoatemybaby]

Going back to this...

In my experience, there's never a bad time to lynch Xtoxm.

Do you have some knowledge of how X plays?

[dingoatemybaby]

Guys. I want everyone to post their current opinion on the following question, be it based on gut, meta, whatever.

Do you feel that Xtoxm is lying to us?

Yes. But I don't have a feeling as to why. My brain keeps getting stuck in WIFOM.

[dingoatemybaby]

Fonz,

What is your answer to your question?

[dingoatemybaby]

I think we should elect a mayor based on everyone putting up 2 candidates.

Why? Don't we already have a system for electing a Mayor? What is the advantage of everyone fake voting for two people instead of people just actually voting for the person they think should be Mayor? And after we all state our two favorites, and a winner is chosen, we are to expect people to vote for this person even if they don't support him or her? This seems like a waste of time and effort. Vote for your preference, and try to convince others to do the same.

As for X, I'm leaning towards seeing what happens during the night. It feels like we are wasting a whole lot of time on him.

@Shadow Knight - Why isn't it good enough just to vote for Mayor? What is gained by your far more complex voting system? Does it matter that your system is non-binding even as it takes twice as long?

[dingoatemybaby]

How about this. Why don't we all list our top four methods for deciding how to vote for mayor and our top four method for deciding how to vote for a lynch. The top three from each will then go into a round robin style voting contest, where the winner of each round will be determined by a method to be determined through an three day elimination challenge. The winner of the round robin contest will be validated by two thirds of the most experienced players and a simple majority of less experienced players. If validated, people can then use these methods to decide who and how they are going to vote for. I propose we vote on my proposal.

Or, just for kicks, we could just

Vote for Mayor

for whoever we want to be mayor and

Vote:

for whoever we want to lynch.

[dingoatemybaby]

Just to be clear, giving more power to people you believe to be scum is NOT a good townie plan. Nor is it wise for the town to waste it's time arguing about how much we should help the mafia.

Unvote
Vote Firestarter for lynch

[dingoatemybaby]

Have you bothered to read anything Ive posted over the last few pages Dingo?

I have indeed, and it is, in my opinion, a load of WIFOM justification for giving a scummy player more power.

[dingoatemybaby]

What it does is give control to town over a player whome they see as scummy, while scumhunting for another.
If said scummy player does not conform to Towns will, said scummy player becomes more scummy, and gets lynched.

You do not need to make said scummy player the Mayor to do this. You just say "If you continue to act scummy, I will vote to lynch you". In fact, lynching people who are continuously scummy is the way the town wins games. And that method does not require giving a scummy player an extra vote.

This is all I am going to say on this matter. I believe we are wasting far too much time on discussing a plan that has no merit.

[dingoatemybaby]

Use of the dual vote system forces people to show a preference for an alternative to self-voting, for a start.

And how does the town make sure everyone votes twice? If some do not, are they then scummy? Who is keeping track of these votes and unvotes? Why should my second choice carry as much weight as my first?

[dingoatemybaby]

Dingo, please answer my 2 questions...

BTW, for your info, right now, the day will NOT end until a Mayor is elected, and a player is lynched.
I dont see a deadline, so enough with the "wasting time" crap please.

Yes to both questions. Your reasoning is wrong, as been explained many times. And if we are not wasting time, we are at least distracting the town.

[dingoatemybaby]

So why the Lynch vote?

Because there is nothing pro-town about your plan.

[dingoatemybaby]

You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.
If the rest of Town see the same picture, thats also fine.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby

Enough info for me.
Nice coat-tailing Zwet...

I understand your argument. Your argument is wrong. I expect scum to make understandable, incorrect, arguments.

And your OMGUS vote is, well, just OMGUS.

[dingoatemybaby]

So far, no-one has shown me this method being used elsewhere in these type games.
Maybe its because no-one had the balls to suggest it as they may come off sounding scummy. I think thats bollox tbh.

Maybe the reason no one does this is because it does not make sense to do it.

Its not an argument...

Its a method of choosing who to elect as scum.
It was turned into something other than that when others totally ignored my points, ignored what I'd written beforehand, and ignored my questions.

By "argument", I don't mean "fight". I mean "a series of statements which lead logically to a conclusion". Your "argument" is flawed in ways I personally think are obvious.

[dingoatemybaby]

Well, you look scummy from a 'voting for game theory disagreement' perspective. But the countervote does look weak.

Please explain. I think it is overly simplistic to say I voted for him for "game theory disagreement". I voted for him because pushing an anti-town plan is scummy.

[dingoatemybaby]

Originally, because you pissed me off....
It seemed certain players were refusing to see my angle, and not actually trying to help it along.

In fairness, there may have been OMGUS present in my vote for you.
But I tried hard to make this method as transparent as possible, and I came up against a brick wall.
However, with zwet's recent posts, Ive retracted that vote now.

Do you actually find Zwet and/or me scummy?

[dingoatemybaby]

He obviously doesn't agree that the plan is antitown....

I wouldn't expect scum to admit they were being anti-town.

[dingoatemybaby]

I also wouldn't expect scum to deliberately propose an obviously townharming plan. I don't think I've EVER seen an argument about game mechanics in which the scum deliberately proposed an antitown one; the disagreement, and hostility engendered, is usually between townies who have alternative visions, and are utterly convinced they their plan is so protown that only scum could object.

Ok, that is pretty good point. But at the same time I don't want to WIFOM an excuse for what I consider scummy play on his part.

[dingoatemybaby]

I think Xtoxm is trying too hard to GET lynched. This automatically makes me want to *not* lynch him.

I would reccomend against going off the "he's trying too hard to be lynched, we'd better not lynch him" WIFOM cliff here.

I'm so far down that cliff I can't even tell which way is up anymore.

[dingoatemybaby]

Alright fine.

Unvote
Vote Xtoxm

[dingoatemybaby]

THERE IS NO SUCH THINK AS SECOND PLACE FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

This is my fault. I used the term "second place" first. I believe I have seen this term used in regards to mafia, but it may have been off-site.

[dingoatemybaby]

I'd just assume kill a jester. It is obviously not as good as killing scum, but it is better than killing town and prevents further distraction.

[dingoatemybaby]

I doubt very much that scum will kill X if he is scum or third party. He is a serious distraction for the town, and will probably remain a likely lynch candidate. Why would they want to waste a night kill on that?

[dingoatemybaby]

Unvote for mayor

The Xtoxm situation ticks me off. I guess we have to wait and see how his replacement explains his behavior (if his replacement even can).

[dingoatemybaby]

Oops. Also

Unvote for Lynch

[dingoatemybaby]

If millar is telling the truth, X was still trying to sabotage him even after asking for a replacement. Why say this

If lynching me would have killed me i'd have just self hammered. The role I have means it is not unfair on the replacement.

if he was just a vanilla townie who was feeling guilty about not fully participating?

[dingoatemybaby]

SK, what are you thinking here?

[dingoatemybaby]

Vote Fonz for Mayor

He feels more town to me than anyone else right now. However, I do not feel so strongly about this that I will not change to someone else I believe to be town to get us to the end of day.

[dingoatemybaby]

Oh. I thought Millar was lynched already. Any objection to me dropping the hammer on him?

[dingoatemybaby]

Lets chooe a mayor first...

Why? Day won't end until we do both. Why mayor before lynch?

[dingoatemybaby]

Are you sure of that?

The day will not end until both a Mayor has been elected and a player has been lynched.

[dingoatemybaby]

Yos blatantly rolefished last page, and noone noticed.

Please be more specific. Can you provide a quote from Yos illustrating what you mean?

[dingoatemybaby]

I think we're allowed to reverse the order though, dingo.

Of course. Juls expressed concern that the day might end if we lynched before electing a mayor. I was just showing her what the Mod had to say about it.

[dingoatemybaby]

My feeling is that regardless of whether X/millar is town, scum, or other, his presence in the game is hurting the town. Almost no scum hunting is pursued.

SK, there is no way the mafia would kill millar for us. Why would they? If he is scum, they want to keep him alive. If he is not scum, they want to keep him distracting the town.

I'm moving millar back to L-2 (I think)

Vote millar

[dingoatemybaby]

Yos blatantly rolefished last page, and noone noticed.

Please elaborate.

[dingoatemybaby]

Considering that Millar had claimed ad Village Idiot, I don't think asking him to expand on that is very scummy, especially considering the play of Xtoxm/millar.

[dingoatemybaby]

@Fonz - You've said you don't want to be mayor. How strongly do you feel about that? Do you think, in the abstract, that this is something we should take into consideration when voting?

[dingoatemybaby]

Typically. While the men bravely huddle together, the women are cowardly wandering around the forest looking for a way to defeat werewolves.



@Zoneface - Any thoughts on yesterday? You were mighty quiet.

[dingoatemybaby]

ZONEACE promised a post on Wednesday. I am going to

Vote: ZONEACE

until he comes up with some fucking

excellent

scumhunting.

In your experience, does this kind of vote actually get lurkers to post? Would you support pushing up the vote count on him and eventually lynching if he doesn't provide "excellent scumhunting"?

[dingoatemybaby]

Not trusting a town player, even after he is confirmed...SCUM!

What am I missing? When were you confirmed as town?

[dingoatemybaby]

Calling out lurkers, voting for them and demanding quality participation doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't have much experience, so I can't comment on its overall efficacy, but I'm willing to give it a spin.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

[dingoatemybaby]

dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.

I just don't like the declaration that his vote will stay on Zoneface until Zoneface starts playing in some "excellent" way. I didn't say that Percy was not contributing.

[dingoatemybaby]

Also if you read the rest of my comments towards you, I explain what his vote is doing. It is putting pressure on ZONE to get in the game. Also, Percy does not have to contribute to a lynch if he doesnt want to. That itself is not scummy.

It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.

I'm not asking him to change his vote. But that stance that he won't change his vote unless Zoneface provides excellent scumhunting? Not a solid position. Lurking can be scummy, but votes should eventually move to who ever is MOST scummy.

Keeping a vote on a lurker can be a useful play for scum. You have an excuse to not vote for a scum buddy. You will not be blamed for the lynching of a townie if the town is going after one of their own.

This is not to say lurkers should not be pressured. If he does not respond to prods, he should be replaced. If he responds to prods but continues to lurk, he should be considered a candidate for a lynch. Putting a vote on a lurker now probably does not do much.

[dingoatemybaby]

Flub. Inothernews,Ididexplainwhyyosrolefished.

Was there anything scummy about Yos asking for a full claim of Millar towards the end of day 1? If so, please explain. If not, why bring it up?

[dingoatemybaby]

That is complete crap. Percy is actively contributing to other conversation. If someone else is being more scummy than feel free to convince him. Right now he has great interest in ZONEACE and finds his lurking to be the most scummy activity so far. Percy is not trying to avoid taking part in anything. Your arguement is vast stretch.

I think there is some disconnect in our communication here. I'm not concerned with Percy voting for Zoneface. I'm concerned about his statement that he intends to keep his vote there unless a specific condition is met by Zoneface.

[dingoatemybaby]

Dumping a vote on a lurker (who really had just flaked) and keeping it there was something I did as scum in the last game I played. It allowed me to distance myself from a vote that manifested against a townie who was acting in a very scummy way.

I'm NOT saying it is wrong to vote for a lurker. I am saying it is wrong to say you will keep your vote on that lurker (or flaker) no matter how scummy other players might turn out to be.

[dingoatemybaby]

No. It was rolefishing, but not scummy rolefishing.

If it was not scummy role fishing, why have you made an issue of it?

[dingoatemybaby]

PRUFT

What does this mean?

[dingoatemybaby]

I have not made an issue of it.

You said Yos's "rolefishing" was something "worth pursuing". If it was not scummy, why is it worth pursuing?

[dingoatemybaby]

To start discussion over Yos's posts. As it amounted to little, it's not really worth pursuing anymore.

So your goal was to ask you why you wanted to pursue the issue, and once you saw your answer, you were satisfied the subject was closed?

[dingoatemybaby]

Yes.

*sigh*

[dingoatemybaby]

LOL@myself for calling Zoneace "Zoneface". It was unintentional. I guess I can't read.

Have we had a prod on Zone recently?

[dingoatemybaby]

I don't find it suspicious either. I find Percy's misrep of the situation suspicious.

If there was nothing scummy about Yos's RC, why are you concerned with the details around it?

[dingoatemybaby]

So you called out Yos for doing something you do not think is scummy because you wanted to pursue it later. And by "pursuing it", you mean you wanted to tell people you didn't want to talk about it. And when Percy agrees with you that Yos did nothing scummy, you feel Percy is scummy for getting a detail wrong.

Vote Zwet

because these random, silly, accusations are scummy.

[dingoatemybaby]

dingoatemybaby: Look at Percy now. He is actively participating while following another lead. Will you now try to paint Percy in such a fashion that he wasnt even close to possibly doing?

I suggest you go back and reread what I actually said about Percy. I was talking about a specific tactic he said he was going to use. I'm done trying to correct you on this. If you want to talk about what I actually said, fine. I'm not interested in defending misrepresentations of my position.

[dingoatemybaby]

@dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too. Percy currently has a perfectly legitamate stance and unless it was reset, he is still voting ZONEACE/tubby while contributing and starting more discussion. You are being misleading and completely paranoid with outrageous accusations.

FoS dingo

There is that misrepresentation. I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone. I've told you this enough times that your misrepresentation can not be anything but deliberate.

I criticized him for saying he would not unvote Zone unless Zone managed to accomplish "excellent scumhunting". Pledging not to vote for anyone else, no matter how scummy those people might be is NOT good play.

Also, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.

And in conclusion, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.

Here is what I said.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

[dingoatemybaby]

And I am saying the criticism is unwarranted.

Well, that is just silly. It is obvious that no one should limit themselves to voting for a specific person regardless of how scummy other people are.

dingo, who do you think is scummiest right now? Who do you think is towniest right now?

I voted for Zwet because I find him to be the most scummy. I've found the Fonz to be the most townie, though it seems he has not posted in a while.

@Fonz. You here?

[dingoatemybaby]

I also agree that Mufasa is scummy. If he can not provide a good defense for himself, I am willing to change my vote. However, I also expect Zwet to step up and stop casting random accusations if he wants me to consider him town.

[dingoatemybaby]

dingo earned my FoS for his repeated critisms of Percy's vote plan. His opinion was made known. It was responded to by myself repeatedly and Yos in post 649. dingo keeps pushing for Percy to change the vote style only because someone might be scumiier. I have repeatedly asked dingo to provide a better target and he hasnt. dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason.

And there it is again. I have not once asked Percy to change his vote. I am done giving your the benifit of the doubt. I'm done using polite language.

You are lying. Period. Could your mistatement been accidental the first time? Sure. But after being corrected over and over? No. You are lying.

Unvote
Vote Dr. Pepper

If you can quote me ever saying trying to get a vote changed, I will take my vote off of you. In the mean time, here are some quotes from me saying the opposite of what you claim I said.

I'm not concerned with Percy voting for Zoneface.

I'm not asking him to change his vote.

I wouldnt make such a big deal about this except this is the third time today/this week we have mentioned several of the players are removed due to their roles' gender. Only 12 of the town is remaining because 8 of the players are in stasis. Good selective reading there sir.

I certainly had a momentary brain fart. BUt forgetting that Fonz was playing a female in this game is hardly at a level where you, of all people, should be expressing mockery. If I were to start insisting that Fonz WAS playing a male, over and over again, despite repeated corrections, then you could mock me for being as inaccurate as Dr. Pepper. And yes, I would be embarrassed if I dropped to that level.

[dingoatemybaby]

Um, he didn't say you "asked" him to change your vote. He said you "pushed" him to change his vote; considering the way you were attacking him for his "I won't change my vote unless..." comment, that actually seems pretty accurate to me.

Your earlier post really seemed to convey the message that you strongly disagreed with his vote and his stated intent to keep his vote there. I find it a bit odd you seem to be distancing yourself from your earlier position there now...

My position has not changed, and Dr. Pepper's representation of my position is utterly false.

I DID say that it was bad strategy to keep you vote on a person who is not posting regardless of whatever else is going on in the game.

I DID NOT say that Percy's vote was unreasonable in and of itself.

Unvote
Vote Percy

I've invited Pepper to quote me trying to get Percy to change his vote. I note he chose to ignore this invitation.

[dingoatemybaby]

I don't think dingo didn't like my vote. I think he didn't like that I said I would keep it there until ZONEACE's replacement actually contributed to the game. He wasn't asking me to change it; he thought it was scummy that I wasn't willing to change it.

"You should be willing to change your vote"
is not the same as
"You should change your vote".

This is exactly right.

[dingoatemybaby]

Sorry. I'm an idiot. I'm sneaking in to post while working. I meant to

Unvote
Vote Pepper

God I'm incompetent sometimes.

[dingoatemybaby]

I am glad Yosarian2 sees what I am getting at. Since dingo has had time to answer my question but chosen to ignore it, I will continue forward. I understand your stance, but you have no reason to be pushing it. And now you are distancing yourself from it.

I do believe you understand my stance. How could you not, after it has been explained to you so many times? The fact that you understand it and still misrepresent it is scummy indeed.

And I am not "distancing" myself from my real stance. I am pointing out that I have never held the stance you are claiming I have. Here is my real stance, yet again.

Voting for a lurker is fine. Saying you will keep your vote on the lurker regardless of opf how scummy anyone else is is not fine.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything.

It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

Bold added for what I am most curious about. dingo implies that Percy's lurker hunt is a way to avoid commiting to a lynch. I think dingo is trying to split hairs when it is pretty clear what he intended.

Percy stated to keep his vote on ZONEACE. dingo didnt like this statement and criticized him for it. The only logical reason to make a statement is to affect change. dingo further backs up the criticism by saying Percy might be voting ZONEACE to 'avoid commiting to an actual lynch'. I respond with if Percy avoids commting then criticism may be warranted, but until then Percy has solid ground to stand on. Now dingo is back peddaling.

Now let's blod the part of my quote that you refuse to acknowledge.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting.

That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

See that? I am not trying to get him to change his vote. I am trying to get him to change the conditions under which he would be willing to change his vote. There is a stark and clear difference between the two. I know you are not stupid. Therefore you are lying.

[dingoatemybaby]

First of all, you didn't just say it was "bad stratagy". You specifically said that he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch, which implies that you think he is scum because of it.

Untrue. Please quote me "specifically" saying "he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch". I said his strategy was one that could be used to avoid "committing" to an actual lynch. As I said before, it IS a strategy that I personally used in my last game to avoid committing to a lynch.

And if you attack someone for doing X, then it is perfectly reasonable to say "You are trying to push that person into not doing X".

True. But I did NOT attack Percy for voting for Zoneace. I attacked him for the conditions he required before he would be willing to change his vote. So it is not "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing Percy to not vote for Zoneace. It is "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing for Percy to change the conditions under which he would be willing to change his vote.

you didn't want Percy to keep his vote on Zoneace indefinatly

Again, untrue. I never said Percy should not keep his vote on Zoneace for as long as it was appropriate. I said there should be conditions, other than the one Percy stated, which would cause him to change his vote.

Note too that you personally have employed the strategy I have said Percy should use. When you saw someone you believed to be acting more scummy that Zoneace, you changed your vote. Percy's strategy does not allow for that.

Isn't it funny that you voted to lynch me for my endorsement of a strategy that you, yourse4lf, employ? For reference, he was the line from Percy that I criticized. I have underlined the part that I objected to.

I am going to

Vote: ZONEACE

until he comes up with some fucking

excellent

scumhunting.

Percy himself understood what I was saying.

I don't think dingo didn't like my vote. I think he didn't like that I said I would keep it there until ZONEACE's replacement actually contributed to the game. He wasn't asking me to change it; he thought it was scummy that I wasn't willing to change it.

"You should be willing to change your vote"
is not the same as
"You should change your vote".

[dingoatemybaby]

Ok. So you were accusing him of trying to use a scum tactic, right? As I said, you were attacking him for the threat he made of threatening to keep his vote on Zoneace unless Zoneace started scumhunting.

"Excellent scumhunting".

Feh. Semantics, really. Especally since Percy had not actally kept his vote on Zoneace for very long or to the exclusion of other wagons, he had mearly threatened to do so.

Not semantics. Two different things, which I repeatedly differentiated between, including in my initial post on the subject.

Yes, Percy did not follow through with his threatened strategy. You also chose not to use the strategy Percy threatened to use. Yet I am scummy because I said the strategy was not sound? You agree with Pepper that I should not have opposed such a strategy?

Oh, I don't think there was anything wrong with Percy saying that, but that's not really why I'm voting for you here.

Dr Pepper disliked your move, and he felt like you were trying to get Percy to move his vote off of Zoneace. Which is a competly rational reaction to your post; any reasonable person could read your post and see it as kind of a sideways way to try to discourage Percy from keeping his vote on Zoneace. You could have just defended your position or whatever and I would have been ok with it, but instead you responded with a massive over-reaction; you accused Dr Pepper of lying and of misrepresenting you, voted him, and have been attacking him since then. The degree of your response seems completly out of propotion to a rather rational and logical post by Dr Pepper, who didn't even FOS you in his initial post, and it makes me think that you may be hiding something, or that your motives may not be what you're saying they are.

I think you may want to read the discussion again. I didn't respond to his accusation by immediately voting for him. I corrected him.

dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.

I just don't like the declaration that his vote will stay on Zoneface until Zoneface starts playing in some "excellent" way. I didn't say that Percy was not contributing.

and corrected him again.

Also if you read the rest of my comments towards you, I explain what his vote is doing. It is putting pressure on ZONE to get in the game. Also, Percy does not have to contribute to a lynch if he doesnt want to. That itself is not scummy.

It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.

I'm not asking him to change his vote. But that stance that he won't change his vote unless Zoneface provides excellent scumhunting? Not a solid position. Lurking can be scummy, but votes should eventually move to who ever is MOST scummy.

Keeping a vote on a lurker can be a useful play for scum. You have an excuse to not vote for a scum buddy. You will not be blamed for the lynching of a townie if the town is going after one of their own.

This is not to say lurkers should not be pressured. If he does not respond to prods, he should be replaced. If he responds to prods but continues to lurk, he should be considered a candidate for a lynch. Putting a vote on a lurker now probably does not do much.

and again

That is complete crap. Percy is actively contributing to other conversation. If someone else is being more scummy than feel free to convince him. Right now he has great interest in ZONEACE and finds his lurking to be the most scummy activity so far. Percy is not trying to avoid taking part in anything. Your arguement is vast stretch.

I think there is some disconnect in our communication here. I'm not concerned with Percy voting for Zoneface. I'm concerned about his statement that he intends to keep his vote there unless a specific condition is met by Zoneface.

and again

dingoatemybaby: Look at Percy now. He is actively participating while following another lead. Will you now try to paint Percy in such a fashion that he wasnt even close to possibly doing?

I suggest you go back and reread what I actually said about Percy. I was talking about a specific tactic he said he was going to use. I'm done trying to correct you on this. If you want to talk about what I actually said, fine. I'm not interested in defending misrepresentations of my position.

and again

@dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too. Percy currently has a perfectly legitamate stance and unless it was reset, he is still voting ZONEACE/tubby while contributing and starting more discussion. You are being misleading and completely paranoid with outrageous accusations.

FoS dingo

There is that misrepresentation. I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone. I've told you this enough times that your misrepresentation can not be anything but deliberate.

I criticized him for saying he would not unvote Zone unless Zone managed to accomplish "excellent scumhunting". Pledging not to vote for anyone else, no matter how scummy those people might be is NOT good play.

Also, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.

And in conclusion, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.

Here is what I said.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

and again

And I am saying the criticism is unwarranted.

Well, that is just silly. It is obvious that no one should limit themselves to voting for a specific person regardless of how scummy other people are.

I did not vote for him until it became clear he would not speak honestly about what I had actually said. I've even offered to remove my vote if he would simply provide a quote from me backing up his claim. He responded with an OMGUS vote against me. Just how many times should I allow Pepper to misrepresent what I said before I call him out a liar?

]Perhaps not, but "you should be willing to change your vote" could very easily mean that you don't want him to keep his vote there long enough for Zoneace to be in danger, but don't want to actually say taht. Even if that wasn't your intent, you really don't understand why other people might decide that that may have been your motivation there?

He did not claim I had a hidden motivation. He claimed I said things I did not say.

[dingoatemybaby]

Look dingo, the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that your actions and statements could be interpreted in anything other than what you say makes you ignorant. I am not a liar and I have stated my opinion. Just because you believe one thing doesnt make it true. If you were honestly trying to sort things, maybe you could listen and realize "Hey, that might look like what Dr Pepper is saying" and instead of calling me a liar.

Since you are refusing to acknowledge that I have a point, I am going to assume dingo is either scum or stupid. I quoted you several times to back up my arguement and instead you just ignore me.


Here is what really happened, dingo voted for me when it became obvious that I would not let his idea slide. I understand his motives could be honest. But I saw another opinion and want to discuss it. dingo's responses have been less than townie. And just requoting yourself dingo to hide the original statement is not content, it is spam.

I quoted our discussion because it is quite illustrative. Your first post could have been an honest mistake. But look how you ignore everything I have to say just so you can repeat that "mistake" over and over. You did not want to "discuss". You refuse to discuss. HOw many times do I need quote my original post back to you before you will acknowledge the words that are actually there?

Oh and I notice you ignored Jahudo's question posed directly to dingo. One very similar to one I asked earlier. Again, good selective reading there dingo. Here is it again.

I didn't "ignore it". I read and post when I have time. And comging from you, who's entire strategy seems to be based on pretending you are too stupid to read, that is really rich.

That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

Did you think Percy was doing this intentionally? Do you think any town player would do it? If so, why?

@Jahudo - I don't know if Percy was doing it intentionally. Maybe it was an empty threat. Maybe it was a threat that was not well thought out. Maybe it was a scum tactic. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked him about it. Town players can make mistakes or empty threats. Sure.

with the truth

@dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too.

Note that you STILL refuse to quote me trying to get Percy to change his vote. Note that you STILL refuse to acknowledge my corrections of your "misreading". Notice that you never expand upon or explain the way you logic your way from my actual words to what you claim I said. You just repeat the same lie over and over in the hopes that someone will believe you.

You say you just "interpreted" my words into the idea I wanted Percy to change his vote. Here is a quote. Show me how you "interpret" this into me wanting PErcy to change his vote.

Calling out lurkers, voting for them and demanding quality participation doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't have much experience, so I can't comment on its overall efficacy, but I'm willing to give it a spin.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

That was my post to Percy. Note that I ONLY criticize the critera he is willing to consider when it comes to changing his vote. Note that not one other player has adopted this strategy. If the strategy is sound, why haven't you employed it?

Not that I expect you will finally find the courage to answer any of my questions.

[dingoatemybaby]

First dingo says that Percy is not moving his vote

Lie. I talked about the conditions under which he was willing to move his vote. I've explained this to you at least a half a dozen times now.

then he says not moving his vote is a scum tactic. /quote]

Again, a lie.

He doesn't actually accuse Percy of anything,

But that didn't stop Pepper from claiming I did.

dingo's stance is

A) Percy is not moving his vote

Lie. Show me one post where I asked him to move his vote.

B) Not moving your vote is a scum tactic

Lie. I never said that Percy should move his vote. I said he places unreasonable restrictions on the the conditions under which he would change his vote.

therefore the implication is drawn
C) Percy is using a scum tactic

Note how Pepper has to lie in his assumptions to get to the conclusion he wants.

He never actually says C...

...nor is C implied by what he said, but if you ignore his actual words and pretend there is merit to the shit Pepper makes up, well then, you can believe anything.

And given how much he is back peddaling I think I found something useful.

If I were back peddling, I wouldn't be quoting myself over and over. Notice that while you refuse to discuss what was actually said, I am willing and able to back up my claims with actual quotes. If you are not embarrassed by your conduct here, why do you whine when I quote our conversation?

If dingo had said, well thats one interpretation but not what I meant, then I would have moved on. Instead he calls me a liar and accuses me of misrepresenting him.

Note how many times I corrected you before calling you a liar. I even suggested that there was a miscommunication and clarified my position for you. So I guess your last statement was just another lie. This seems to be a habit for you.

There is another disturbing trend in your posts. You almost never answer questions put to you. I even mocked your cowardice in my last post, as still you didn't answer.

@Pepper - Have you ever seen anyone dodge questions as much as you do who actually believes what they are saying?

[dingoatemybaby]

@Dr Pepper: Post 769 is true, and I'm sure dingo would agree. That's why he voted for me - he thought I was using a scum tactic. This is a self-evident fact.

No. But I can understand this confusion (because it is entirely my own doing). I was typing fast and meant to vote for Pepper. I change this vote the next time I came online to who I meant if for. Note that the entire post was about Pepper.

Dingo
(1) Percy voted, and was not willing to change it until the condition "excellent scumhunting" was met.

FACT

(2) Imposing this condition is a scum tactic.

OPINION

Therefore:
(3) Percy is using a scum tactic.

NECESSARY CONCLUSION

No. I identified at least one scenario where it would not be a scum tactic. You could be a townie bluffing, which would be a town tactic. You could also actually think the tactic is sound, which would make you an townie playing a bad strategy. Note that I simply asked you about this. I did not FOS you or vote for you (except as a foolish goof) over it.

I'll also note that I

have

followed through with my strategy. I think it's important to not leave lurkers behind, and I don't want a lynch until tubby has had a chance to speak. When he does speak, I want him to be under a lot of pressure to generate good info for the town as fast as possible, and scrutinised while he does it. That's why my vote is (still) on him.

What if he doesn't provide "excellent scum hunting" and only acts like an average townie? Tubby may not be capable of excellent play. What if someone else appears extremely scummy? Would you still prefer to pressure someone providing average scum hunting over someone who shows them self to almost certainly be scum? Would you argue others should follow your lead?

Here is my point. Your stated strategy is not sound under many plausible situations. Whether you are scummy can't be determined until or unless those situations arise.

[dingoatemybaby]

Confirm vote: Dingo

Should this be taken to mean you are not willing to discuss why you are voting for someone, and that once you vote there is no point in providfing you with evidence?

You claimed I reacted to Pepper by calling him a liar and voting for him when I should have defended my position. As I showed you, I corrected him is SIX separate posts before accusing him of lying. Before voting for him.

Since your stated reason for voting for me seems to not be based on the facts of the discussion, it would be helpful if you explained why you are still voting for me.

[dingoatemybaby]

Yes, I get that Mufasa. But it was in response to a very long and detailed post.

[dingoatemybaby]

No. It should be taken to mean that your last post, where you called him a liar like 5 more times even though he was clearly not 'lying', made me more happy about my vote on you.

He most clearly is. I get that you didn't want to read through the discussion again. But I really encourage you to. I don't just call him a liar. I quote his lies, explain why they are lies, and back that up with direct quotes.

But what you have not done is explained why you think he's scum. He may or may not be right about your motives; his suspicions of you look reasonable to me, but they may or may not be right. Either way, why do you think he's scum?

I HAVE explained why I think he is scum. His lies about what I have said, in order to make me look scummy, are scummy.

I am voting for you because you seem to be using your vote to "punish" someone for daring to question your motives

Really? Because when he questioned my motives, I simply tried to engage him in discussion. I know my post quoting the whole conversation is long. It is long because there were that many posts made before I voted for him. You have questioned my motives. Have I voted for you? Have I FOS'd you? No. Why? Because you have not done what Pepper has done, which is to constantly claim I have said things I have not said. I do think you honestly believe what you are saying. It is clear Pepper does not.

[dingoatemybaby]

I fail to proof read once again. Corrected for formatting.

No. It should be taken to mean that your last post, where you called him a liar like 5 more times even though he was clearly not 'lying', made me more happy about my vote on you.

He most clearly is. I get that you didn't want to read through the discussion again. But I really encourage you to. I don't just call him a liar. I quote his lies, explain why they are lies, and back that up with direct quotes.

But what you have not done is explained why you think he's scum. He may or may not be right about your motives; his suspicions of you look reasonable to me, but they may or may not be right. Either way, why do you think he's scum?

I HAVE explained why I think he is scum. His lies about what I have said, in order to make me look scummy, are scummy.

I am voting for you because you seem to be using your vote to "punish" someone for daring to question your motives

Really? Because when he questioned my motives, I simply tried to engage him in discussion. I know my post quoting the whole conversation is long. It is long because there were that many posts made before I voted for him. You have questioned my motives. Have I voted for you? Have I FOS'd you? No. Why? Because you have not done what Pepper has done, which is to constantly claim I have said things I have not said. I do think you honestly believe what you are saying. It is clear Pepper does not.

[dingoatemybaby]

To be precice, A should have said "Percy said he was not going to move his vote", or something to that effect, but it was close enough for you to get what he was talking about.

Ahh. This gets right to the heart of it. This "imprecision" is not incidental. It is not just an attempt to summarize my position. I corrected these sorts of misstatement over and over and over before deciding he was simply lying. He disputes my corrections. You don't need to logic your way from his actual words to "what he is talking about". He is saying exactly what he means to say.

See, this is not the fist time he has claimed I am trying to get PErcy to change his vote.

dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason

His claim that I am trying to get Percy to change his vote is the bases for many of Pepper's arguments.

Is there a scummier person here right now?

I have repeatedly asked dingo to provide a better target and he hasnt. dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason.

And there it is again. I have not once asked Percy to change his vote.

OK, one question. Why criticize him for his statement then?

You can see that Pepper's base assumption is incorrect, and you give him the benifit of the doubt, assuming he meant something other than what he said. But he consistently makes that same incorrect base assumption. THAT is why I call him a liar.

You called B a lie, when it *is* the truth; I have no idea how you could consider that a lie at all, you pretty clearly stated that keeping your vote on a lurker is a scum tactic.

No. I said that an unwillingness to move a vote off a lurker, regardless of what is going on in the game, is a scum tactic. I did not say that PErcy needed to move his vote to appear less scummy.

Percy himself has explained the difference.

And C clearly *is* implied by what you were saying; you *were* trying to imply that Percy was using a scum tactic (or was going to use a scum tactic, or was talking about using a scum tactic, or was thinking about using a scum tactic, or whatever); you WERE basically, more or less, semi-accusing Percy of being scum who wanted to keep his vote on a lurker wagon so he wouldn't have to comment on other wagons. And, again, I would be fine with you making that accusation, but I hate the way you seem to be running from your own words right now.

Could be scummy. Could be mistake. Could be a bluff. I'm through quoting my actual words back to you. My position has been completely consistent. Apparently my actual words don't matter though. You've decided that the disconnect between what I said and what Pepper claims I said doesn't matter because I was secretly trying to say something I never said and Pepper meant to say something other that what he said.

"Liar" is a very strong term in mafia, especally since the standard meta is "lynch all liars". When you keep repeating that someone is a "liar", when that does not seem not accurate, it makes me suspicious of you.

Be that as it may, here are a couple other "misrepresentations" from Pepper.

dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded.

I never said Percy was not contributing.

That is complete crap. Percy is actively contributing to other conversation.

I never said anything about Percy not contributing to the conversation.

dingoatemybaby: Look at Percy now. He is actively participating while following another lead.

Again, I never said Percy was not participating.

And so on. When I say that Percy's stance on what would cause him to change his vote is not sound, he says I am making "outrageous accusations".

Look, this is not some vendetta I am on. He is actively trying to convince the town that I have attacked Percy in ways I clearly never have. In this effort, he has actively and consistently lied about what I have said. I know "liar" is a strong word. I'm not going to avoid calling out lies simply because lies are considered anti-town. If we are not going to call out anti-town behavior, then why even bother playing?

[dingoatemybaby]

MikeSC6 sums up my point pretty well

It seemed to me that it was just a figure of speech- if it got to a point where whoever it was refused to consider anything else because of the (lack of) actions of a replacements predecessor, then sure we should look into it.

But until then, its not worth criticizing Percy for the conditions in which he would not move his vote.

I ASKED him whether he literally intended to never move his vote regardless of what was happening in the game. It was merely asking him about this, and saying that it was a poor strategy if meant literally, that gave you your excuse to go into your long litany of lies about me. You immediately started claiming I was saying that Percy was not participating. You immediately claimed I was trying to get Percy to change his vote.

Now you seem to be admitting that the question of whether Percy really will not move his vote except under specific and hard to meet conditions is valid. Will you retract your lies?

[dingoatemybaby]

@ dingo: Its valid after it happens, not before hand you fucking troll.

Interesting. So if a player makes a pledge to act in a way that will be scummy under plausible circumstances, it is only legitimate to ask him about it if those circumstances occur?

@Pepper - If I compiled a list of questions that have been posted to you that you have chosen not to answer, would that increase the likelyhood you would respond to them?

[dingoatemybaby]

Congrats dingo, you got under my skin. I HATE having someone try to twist things around due to their own ignorance. By the way, I do mean you are a "fucking troll", dingo. I mean it in the most insulting way possible.

You are as classy as you are intelligent.

dingo gave his reasoning for questioning Percy, and I have shot it down. If Percy was going to do any of the scummy things related to not moving his vote until tubby/ZONEACE comes up with excellent scum hunting, then point them out when it occurs. Do not just hide behind thinly vieled accusations. Because the reasoning listed from the questioning is a very thinly vieled attack. And I called your ass out for it dingo.

You created false positions for me and then claimed that anyone holding those false positions was scum.

And while dingo may have had one thing in mind while typing his intial concerns, it is very easy (and reasonable) to read it another way. And dingo's follow up statement about me mis-reping his stance, well what do you think of Percy now that Percy is staying the course with the stated strategy? Is Percy scum or town for not moving his vote until tubby/ZONEACE comes up with some excellent scum hunting? Becuase your earlier statement of players who dont move their vote regardless of what else is going on strongly implies that dingo thinks they would be scum for doing it.

Your inability to speak the truth never fails to amaze. No, I do not think that Percy's decision to keep his vote on Tubby through the day thus far is scummy.

dingo seems to draw conclusions from my statements and streches them in whatever direction dingo wishes until they become lies and label Dr P as a liar. dingo wont make a simple intelligent connection regarding his own words.

Note that you still refuse to provide a single example of me saying the things you claim I said. If my own words condemn me, why can't you find any to demonstrate it?

And maybe you can explain how you interpret this

I'm not asking him to change his vote.

to this

dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason.

Not that I expect you to even try to explain. You are so tied up in your web of lies that you can't answer even the most basic questions put to you.

Here's something for you dingo, my vote is staying on you until you are either lynched, or night killed. Criticize that jackass.

Yet another scummy tactic from a very scummy player.

[dingoatemybaby]

Sorry for letting my frustration get the best of me.

[dingoatemybaby]

The thing is, the clarifications are what make me suspicious. It's not just that he didn't want you to keep your vote on Zoneace indefinatly, it's that he didn't seem want to ADMIT that that's what he was doing, that set off my alarm bells.

I'm not even sure that we are close to being on the same page here. From your phrasing I think you believe that I necessarily want Percy to change his vote at some point. That is not true at all. I want him to expand the conditions under which he would change his vote. Whether he ever should or not depends on how the game unfolds.

It may turn out to be perfectly reasonable for Percy to keep his vote on Tubby's replacement. It may turn out to be unreasonable. I'm just saying that it is too limiting to say the ONLY condition which would cause a vote change is "excellent scumhunting" from Zoneace/Tubby/Whoever.

This is not backtracking. This is not distancing myself from my own words. This is what I have said from the beginning.

[dingoatemybaby]

Sidenote: dingo, are you more inclined to believe ZONEACE/tubby to be scum now, given the above quote and his replacement-then-lurk?

I'm going to distinguish between lurkers and flakers. People who are playing but not posting are lurkers. That is definitely scummy. People who sign up but don't play are flakers, and I don't think there is anyway to determine how scummy they are. Both Zone and Tubby seem to be flakers. Zone just vanished and tubby asked to be replaced.

So my view of Zone/Tubby is neutral right now. There are some people I feel are probably town. There are some I'm getting a scummy vibe from. I don't know anyway to judge Zone/Tubby. I do think it is reasonable to demand participation from whoever takes over before the day is done. Would I vote to lynch a role because a series of players who held it didn't bother to play? Only if there were no better targets. Right now I'd lynch Pepper, Zwet, and Muffasa before Zone.

[dingoatemybaby]

I do have one request though. dingo, if you have the time, please repost the question that you think I have not answered.

In all honestly, I really have no desire to get sucked back into this thing you do. If you had answers to the questions put to you, you would not have ignored those questions. This is the pattern of our converstaion.

I say something.
You ignore what I say and make up a false position for me.
I quote my real words back to you.
You ignore my real words and make your false claim again.
I quote my real words back to you.
You ignore my real words and make your false claim again.

And on and on. I see what you are doing here. People are analyzing what happened, and you want to disrupt it. If you want to answer the questions you have ignored, go ahead and answer them. But there is no way I am going to spend an hour re-reading the conversation and collecting quotes only to have to ignore or misrepresent them so you can get me posting the questions back at you over and over again to try and show you are not dealing with them honestly.

[dingoatemybaby]

I just have a very hard time seeing it any other way. Once the word "liar" was thrown out not once but repeatedly by dingo, it was a personal attack and full out attempt at lynching Dr Peper.

There was nothing personal about it. I don't think your lies in this game make you a liar in real life. Scum in this game are expected to lie.

Oh, one more thing since I just saw dingo most recent post. How does this

@Pepper - If I compiled a list of questions that have been posted to you that you have chosen not to answer, would that increase the likelyhood you would respond to them?

become this

If you want to answer the questions you have ignored, go ahead and answer them. But there is no way I am going to spend an hour re-reading the conversation and collecting quotes only to have to ignore or misrepresent them so you can get me posting the questions back at you over and over again to try and show you are not dealing with them honestly.

dingo's still being pretty hostile in my opinion. One of us should be lynched today between dingo and Dr Pepper. I think it should be dingo.

I thought better of it and decided there was no way you had any intention of answering my questions. I mean, you read me mocking you after I ask you questions because I predict you won't answer them. And you don't. But then you ask me to post them again? If you had any intention of answering them, why don't you just answer them? Do you not know how to go back to posts you have read before? And if you can't remember what happened in previous posts, how can you possibly scum hunt?

Here, I'll give you just one to see what you do.

And maybe you can explain how you interpret this

I'm not asking him to change his vote.

to this

dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason.

Not that I expect you to even try to explain. You are so tied up in your web of lies that you can't answer even the most basic questions put to you.

Look familiar?

[dingoatemybaby]

The base assumption is "criticize" yes? But weren't you technically judging the merits of Percy's decision to vote for a lurker? You don't have to judge with suspicion or condemnation. Are you saying you were completely devoid of judgment on what Percy did?

I'm not sure I understand your question exactly. If this does not answer it, let me know.

My judgment of the vote was this. Pressuring a lurker is a good idea. I'd even say it that if you have no where else to place your vote, placing it on a lurker is a fine thing to do with it. I also said I didn't think it would amount to much if Zone was a flaker instead of a lurker and that prodding was probably more useful than voting. So Percy's actual vote did not make me think Percy was scummy.

[dingoatemybaby]

@ Mike I really have nothing to say about BM if you want to lynch me for that than go right ahead.

This one really confuses me. You say we need to lynch BM, but you can't explain why and don't want to talk about it? Or am I not remembering some explantion?

[dingoatemybaby]

Sup guys. I have a lot to read!

Welcome. Can you give us a time frame for when you expect to post your thoughts?

[dingoatemybaby]

Sup guys. I have a lot to read!

Why even post that. Waste of a post

I see you've flat out refused to answer my questions- why?

I'm happier with my vote than I've ever been.

Yeah. Mufasa is second on my list, and I would not object to lynching him if that is the way things fall out.

[dingoatemybaby]

I completely don't mind you guys lynching me, its all good.

This bugs the hell out of me.

[dingoatemybaby]

I completely don't mind you guys lynching me, its all good.

Why is ok, in your mind, for us to lynch you?

[dingoatemybaby]

Because I don't fear death, at least in this game.

Please explain.

Assume after your next vague, one line post, explain that one. Repeat this process over and over until you have created a paragraph which actually contains information.

[dingoatemybaby]

You lets say should keep talking until you've said something useful. Pretend you've been thrown into a black hole, where time and space become so compressed that you actually write more than one sentence in a post.

[dingoatemybaby]

Speaking of Pepper, he hasn't posted in a while.

[dingoatemybaby]

Posting has dried up

True. But it had not dried up when Pepper vanished ten days ago. We were in the middle of a discussion. He asked me for questions I felt he had not answered. I gave him one. He disappeared.

[dingoatemybaby]

I meant to comment on this earlier.

If he's truly pro-town and we wait til tomorrow, he could be killed in the night and (I gather) we'd lose whatever pro-town trigger he's got. If he's anti-town (which I think he is) then not going along with his plan could at least minimise the damage.

I like this logic. Scum knows if Mufasa is scum, and will act accordingly. The best move for the town may well be to lynch Mufasa today.

[dingoatemybaby]

Unless he's third party or a vampire or something similar

In that case, we shouldn't be taking advice from him anyway.

[dingoatemybaby]

I believe Pepper is L-2 right now. But I could be off, so people should be careful with their votes.

[dingoatemybaby]

Anyone try to prod the mod?

[dingoatemybaby]

Gah. If Pepper is townie, that is extremely bad play. I guess it is bad play for anything but a Jester.

But Pepper is right about Firestarter. He is closing in on 3 weeks of promises to post in the near future.

[dingoatemybaby]

I would, but I honestly have absolutly no idea why we lynched Pepper today, and no one seemed interested in explaining their votes to me. I was *here*, and I don't understand what happened.

I get that you don't agree with the reasoning, but I feel like it was explained ad nauseum.

[dingoatemybaby]

Well, fair enough; you gave a reason, you thought he was misrepresenting you, although he really wasn't. I don't think anyone else gave any kind of reason for voting him, though, as far as I can tell.

I think just about everyone explained that they believed Pepper to be misrepresenting, and gave references of some sort to support it.

For example

As for Dr. Pepper, his repeated misreps are convincing; post 782 and 787 are good examples. Page 32 in general sold me.

@Mike: Alot of it comes in posts after those that you PbPa'ed. Take Dr. Pepper's post 716 for instance, where he said:

dingo earned my FoS for his repeated critisms of Percy's vote plan. His opinion was made known. It was responded to by myself repeatedly and Yos in post 649. dingo keeps pushing for Percy to change the vote style only because someone might be scumiier. I have repeatedly asked dingo to provide a better target and he hasnt. dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason. I find these actions of his to be either misleading or paranoid.

He's taken the initial inference that dingo

wanted

to change Percy's vote, to a recollection that dingo

actually tried

to get a vote changed. This is a misrepresentation that attempts to boost Dr. Pepper's case but cannot be proven by what dingo said in 643 and other posts.

Percy had a long analysis of the issue. I think only zwet and Mufasa didn't say much. But do they ever?

[dingoatemybaby]

Bah!