Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[Knight of Cydonia]

You said yourself that Confid was about as town as it gets.

Confid is about as town as it gets.

unvote

Because I have no idea why my predecessor voted Cookie yet, and I don't want to contribute to any stupid lynches.

Why not feel the same about DRK? Despite your insistence that Mafia vote other Mafia, do you not believe that Town can vote other Town?

Of course. The thing is, DRK isn't "just" discussing Jester speculation with CA, he's trying to make CA appear scummy by refusing to admit that he

did

bring up Jesters first, implied or no, and suggesting that CA is trying to make him the scapegoat for this. If he had been willing to hold up his hands and say "Yeah, I brought Jesters up, my bad, guys" I wouldn't find him as scummy. The way he's refusing to admit this, and the poor light he's trying to cast on myself and CA by way of this denial, is why I'm voting him. I have far more reason to trust CA than I do DRK.

[Kreriov]

Vote Count

BigBear (1) - EtherealCookie
don_johnson (3) - ZazieR Shrinehme Raskol
ConfidAnon (3) - Sanjay DeathRowKitty Furry

DeathRowKitty (4)

- ConfidAnon don_johnson BigBear Knight of Cydonia
Knight of Cydonia (1) - Looker

With 12 alive is takes 7 to lynch.

Looking for a replacement for Peabody

Prodding EC

Please ask friends if they would like to replace in.

DEADLINE SET: 10 Nov 2009 (Tues) @ 3pm EST

[Kreriov]

Effective immediately

Raskol

is replacing Peabody.

I will keep up a request for replacements as there are some people who have not responded to prods and are about to get a third prod.

[Raskol]

/confirm

Starting to read...

[Looker]

Furry, welcome to the game.

Looker, I don't have written scumlists. At the time Confid was my top suspect. Then brothernature.

Why didn't you ask for a list at the time? I could have answered you much better. Just curious about it now?

Never mind, sugah, just tryin to catch up is all.

You said yourself that Confid was about as town as it gets.

Confid is about as town as it gets.

unvote

Because I have no idea why my predecessor voted Cookie yet, and I don't want to contribute to any stupid lynches.

Why not feel the same about DRK? Despite your insistence that Mafia vote other Mafia, do you not believe that Town can vote other Town?

Of course. The thing is, DRK isn't "just" discussing Jester speculation with CA, he's trying to make CA appear scummy by refusing to admit that he

did

bring up Jesters first, implied or no, and suggesting that CA is trying to make him the scapegoat for this. If he had been willing to hold up his hands and say "Yeah, I brought Jesters up, my bad, guys" I wouldn't find him as scummy. The way he's refusing to admit this, and the poor light he's trying to cast on myself and CA by way of this denial, is why I'm voting him. I have far more reason to trust CA than I do DRK.

It simply appears to me that DRK was defending himself against CA's allegations that he sparked a Jester discussion, as opposed to steering town, and, in the process, deduced that CA was changing his stance, as stated in Post 459. And as far as the "Yeah, I brought Jesters up, my bad, guys" and "refusing to admit", what if you're wrong? You're voting him because he's not saying what you want him to say? Which is "Yeah, I brought Jesters up, my bad, guys, ConfidAnon and Knight of Cydonia are right."? I'm currently trying to find the post which started all of this so that, ironically, it can also end it.

And I noticed that you used the term "trust" again. Wouldn't "believe" fit more adequately? What makes you think that you can trust ConfidAnon? Playstyle?

I'm done talking about this

Weird. You only seem to say that when you're out of valid responses.

---

The entire argument I've been having with CA has been over, as shrine called it, "a small detail." However, it's a big deal in the context of what happened before it.

CA's "case" on me started in this post. I think I've already said enough about the inaccuracy of the content of this post, so I won't go into detail on that in this post. Just notice that the entire case is based on the premise that I started the jester conversation. Without that premise, the entire case falls apart. That's where this argument comes in.

A few posts later, upon realizing that nook was the first one to specifically mention a jester, we get this quote buried in one of CA's posts:

You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester.

, mixed of course with insistence that I started the conversation about jesters. This in and of itself is contradictory. Sure the quote doesn't explicitly say I didn't start the conversation, but saying I intended to start the conversation about jesters is a pretty big concession to make considering he's compromising on the foundation of his argument.

Not long later, I post this statement:

I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...

to which he responds:

Meh, I'm not gonna restate the case again. I believe that you were the one who sparked the jester discussion, you believe that you didn't and that nook did. We'll agree to disagree.

The person with a vote on me decides we should agree to disagree. Interesting. If his case has merit, why wouldn't he want to advertise it to the rest of the game? Notice also that he says he thinks I honestly believe that nook started the jester conversation. That's basically admitting I wasn't trying to start the jester conversation, which nullifies his entire case. Logically, his vote is still on me at this point. When questioned, he retracts that statement and changes it to the contents of this post. When questioned further, he says his theory is no longer as strong as it was, a happy medium between defending garbage and admitting he was wrong.

Next, we get this quote from CA:

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

According to this, I no longer started the jester conversation. Suddenly, his stance has changed to the fact that I would have started the conversation given the opportunity, a huge assumption to be basing an entire case on. This quote comes after Zazie pointed out where I told IK I just wanted a yes or no answer, so I don't see any logical reason to assume I would have "followed up with [my] implications."

I quote this post in its entirety because it's just so full of crap I don't want to miss anything:

Given what Zazie quoted in post 425, why do you think I was intending to start a conversation about jesters? Also, how did your position change from me starting the conversation about jesters to me planning to start the conversation about jesters?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself. Your ignorance of your own post is telling.

Post 388 is where I quoted the post where you admitted that you were implying a jester.

My position has not changed, I don't know why you believe it has.

Let's analyze the three paragraphs seperately (and out of order):
1) I never once said I intended to start a conversation about jesters and when asked to find such a post, CA failed to produce one. Notice also that he once again says I

intended

to start a conversation about jesters, as opposed to his previous stance that I did start the conversationa about jesters.
3) His position didn't change? Really? Going from saying I started the conversation about jesters to saying I intended to, when that's the foundation of his case, isn't changing his position?
2) I admitted I was implying a jester=I admitted I wanted to start a conversation about a jester? I suppose I implied it instead of mentioning it outright to increase the odds of that conversation occurring?

Questioned once again, CA gives us another gem:

Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.

[sarcasm]Nice way to cover your inconsistencies, CA.[/sarcasm] Suddenly, I never actually said I intended to start a conversation about a jester; now I said I was implying a jester. I guess, naturally, this amounts to a confession of intending to start a conversation about jesters?

Here's CA's next post:

You started it . . . whats the point of arguing this point? There is very little difference between either argument.

Now suddenly, I started the conversation about jesters. Of course, realizing he's cornered, he tries to make the argument sound trivial.

Now, in his most recent post, we get this:

Your question implied a jester. You were the first person in the thread to do so. Therefore, you started the conversation about a jester. I'm done talking about this because, as Peabody pointed out, it's trivial.

He's finally solidified his position. I started the conversation about a jester by being the first to imply a jester in one of my posts. In his nervousness, he even messed up the person who called the argument trivial (Peabody instead of shrine).

tl; dr
CA is scum. He's been changing his position to accomodate his points being shot down to defend a theory based on incorrect evidence.

Unvote, vote: ConfidAnon

/confirm

Starting to read...

Hurrah, a fresh new perspective has arrived.

[DeathRowKitty]

drk: the italicized bit was noting a possible change in your playstyle.

People were generally more active in our previous game, so I would have no reason to have posted something like that. Either way though, it would be a change in my posting style, not a change in my playstyle in my mind.

the asterisk bit can often seem smug or arrogant. there are some players who utilize it more than others, but compared to your playstyle in the previous game i felt it may have been exhibiting overconfidence. i.e. you read as obvscum to me, but have most of the thread fooled at that point in the game.

I used the asterisks more to explain why I wasn't posting as much content than anything else. I'm also not sure where you're going with this. I had most of the town fooled in the last game IIRC. Clearly, I didn't have ryan or IK fooled and I received some hostility from hiphop towards the end of Day 1 when I unvoted Jason, but I don't even remember making anyone else's scumlist during Day 1. Why would I be more confident in this game?

The thing is, DRK isn't "just" discussing Jester speculation with CA, he's trying to make CA appear scummy by refusing to admit that he did bring up Jesters first, implied or no, and suggesting that CA is trying to make him the scapegoat for this.

Seriously people, READ THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT because I am really tired of having to explain it over and over again. Here's what the argument is about (presented with as little bias as an angry cat can possibly present with):

CA created a case on me based on the premise that I started the jester discussion. I

(correctly)

argued against the fact that I started the discussion. CA at multiple later points said that I

intended

to start the jester discussion, a point he defended by saying that his saying that I intended to start the jetser discussion was

giving up the foundation of his case

not in conflict with his previous stance that I started the conversation. I personally think my recap in post 459 is better (Looker reproduced it in her most recent post) , but it's full of

THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

bias.

What I denied earlier, and have been correctly denying for pages now, is that I started the discussion because I very clearly didn't. I mean, seriously, does "Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread." make any sense to you, considering what's happened? ZOMG, I was the first to imply a jester and only to a single person. I didn't mean for anything to come of it (hence the yes/no answer thing) and NOTHING DID COME OF IT. Honestly now, do you really believe I started the jester discussion and would the discussion have started BASED SOLELY ON MY IMPLICATION had nook not brought the topic up? If not, I don't see how you're siding with CA here.

---

And now, the verdict: Why is bringing up a jester scummy?

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

Hunting for a jester distracts from scumhunting, so starting a conversation about a jester is antitown in nature.

Let's start with CA's reasoning. I'm scummy for

implying

starting a conversation about a jester because hunting for a jester distracts from scumhunting, which is anti-town. First big problem: anti-town=/=scummy. At worst, by CA's reasoning, I'd be anti-town. That's of course even if his reasoning is correct (which is debatable). Was I, through my implication of a jester, trying to distract the town from scumhunting? Well, let's see: I 1)addressed it to one person. 2) implied a jester to prevent a quicklynch of a possible jester to allow for more scumhunting. How exactly did I distract from scumhunting again?

Now let's move on to KoC's opinion. He presented two options for why a jester is scummy.
1. Clearly, I wasn't trying to get the town to jester-hunt, so that reason doesn't apply to this situation.
2. I later suggested that if EC is a jester, we should lynch him, so that doesn't apply to me. Also, that whole thing about not trusting each other on the Internet....what was that supposed to show? How overly dramatic you can be to make my bringing up a jester seem scummy?

@KoC
What do you think of post 459?

[don_johnson]

the asterisk bit can often seem smug or arrogant. there are some players who utilize it more than others, but compared to your playstyle in the previous game i felt it may have been exhibiting overconfidence. i.e. you read as obvscum to me, but have most of the thread fooled at that point in the game.

I used the asterisks more to explain why I wasn't posting as much content than anything else. I'm also not sure where you're going with this. I had most of the town fooled in the last game IIRC. Clearly, I didn't have ryan or IK fooled and I received some hostility from hiphop towards the end of Day 1 when I unvoted Jason, but I don't even remember making anyone else's scumlist during Day 1. Why would I be more confident in this game?

i'm not going anywhere with this. you brought it up. i never said you were more confident in this game. i never compared your confidence level to last game. i simply pointed out that the post read to me like overconfident scum. maybe i'm not choosing the right describer word, but that's how i see it. there is not much to argue here. i told you your best option(building a case on who you think is scum), but for some reason you want to continue talking to me. that's not going to get youy anywhere. i think you're scum.

[Looker]

@All: IIRC?

DeathRowKitty's Post 705 - Very well-put.

the asterisk bit can often seem smug or arrogant. there are some players who utilize it more than others, but compared to your playstyle in the previous game i felt it may have been exhibiting overconfidence. i.e. you read as obvscum to me, but have most of the thread fooled at that point in the game.

I used the asterisks more to explain why I wasn't posting as much content than anything else. I'm also not sure where you're going with this. I had most of the town fooled in the last game IIRC. Clearly, I didn't have ryan or IK fooled and I received some hostility from hiphop towards the end of Day 1 when I unvoted Jason, but I don't even remember making anyone else's scumlist during Day 1. Why would I be more confident in this game?

i'm not going anywhere with this. you brought it up. i never said you were more confident in this game. i never compared your confidence level to last game. i simply pointed out that the post read to me like overconfident scum. maybe i'm not choosing the right describer word, but that's how i see it. there is not much to argue here. i told you your best option(building a case on who you think is scum), but for some reason you want to continue talking to me. that's not going to get youy anywhere. i think you're scum.

Was your Post 559 the full extent of your case?

page 5:

looker is scumhunting. i guess there's a first for evrything.

103 is horrible, trerible, no good wifomic meta defense that essentially creates a circular pattern of knowledge confirmation. "bear is competent scum, so he wouldn't no lynch as scum, so he must be town, but if i think he's town and he's really scum then he's most certainly competent scum."

106 echoes my thoughts.

107 is way off. shrine distances from bear rather pedantically(is that a word?) points out obvious possible town motivations for bear's play. post reads more as fluff than anything.

108 *facepalm* looker: confid ran the wifom. not fc. not sure why you question one and not the other, especially when you question the one who implies bear might be scum after stating you want to vote for bear. good ol' looker! conclusion: coincidence? whatever.

109 leans more and more scum on shrine.

116 breath of fresh logic. i agree with the vote, but it is inexplained.

117 again: *facepalm* one self voter is enough.

cookie is a bit... spastic. no problem with an L-2 vote on shrine here. unfortunately for us it seems as though the resident jokers of ms have all been gathered together in one thread. at this point a random lynch seems like it might be the best idea. onward.

page 6:

shrine confirms he's scum.

vote: shrine

I don't see how WIFOM at this point in the game really helps the town.

then why did you self vote and then vote no lynch? claiming gambit in retrospect(i did it to spark discussion) is lame.

add bear to "willing to lynch" list.

The truth is, long and active day ones are very profitable, and me creating this type of discussion is priceless.

^^ yes and no. the price of wifomic self votes and no lynch discussion starters are more often than not trips down wifom lane that do nothing more than spam threads full of useless discussion that is better off taking place in a general theory forum as opposed to a game where players have to replace in and read through pages of crap about nothing.

129 is correct. cases without material to respond to are difficult to respond to.

add cookie to "willing to policy lynch" list.

DRK 131 is a bit non-sequitur. it seems as though shrine is who he finds scummier, but continues attack on farcry for defense of a "bad" vote? i am not following. feels like he should be jumping to shrine here but is choosing not to. filed for future reference.

132 is fail logic by cookie. no surprise there.

DRK now defends shrine. very odd. reads to me like: "lynch shrine, then lynch DRK regardless of the flip."

DRK echoes reasoning of "L-2 out of random stage is bad." fail logic. scum is scum. time is relative.

unvote, vote DRK

not voting shrine is okay, but defending him makes no sense.

139 comes out of the shadows attacking the "easiest" target. lots of quote, not many words...

peabody as well. ^^ read above comment.

if cookie is lynched it should be policy for anti-town behavior, but to imply it is scummy to keep a suspect wagon at L-2 seems counterproductive.

i like 145

i hope we have a vig and i hope its not cookie.

i like 148

i don't like 149. there is no "proper" way to play mafia. posts like this more often come from scum trying to look town. vote stays.

DRK
Shrine
Confid
all for independently scummy behavior.

cookie for policy.

end page 6.

[ConfidAnon]

Did my question to IK open up a discussion?

No. Does that take away the scumminess? No, because you still setup the possibility of the discussion being opened.

AtE is not scummy. Sorry. No one has ever explained why it is. I see CAs attempt, but it fails. Doubly to him using it as a conditional tell. The ignoring of BB putting him at a precieved L-2 getting not even a second thought is concerning as well.

I would argue that when someone gets votes and uses AtE as part of their defense it is scummy, specifically when the AtE outweighs the argument.

(insert argument about me changing my stance again)

In my mind, my stance has never changed. The way I worded the posts did change, and for that I apologize. I am not used to debates like what occured, and I messed up while arguing my position. However, my point is still valid. Your question was about a jester. You were the first to bring it up. You threw the idea out there, which is anti-town.

[Furry]

AtE is not scummy. Sorry. No one has ever explained why it is. I see CAs attempt, but it fails. Doubly to him using it as a conditional tell. The ignoring of BB putting him at a precieved L-2 getting not even a second thought is concerning as well.

I would argue that when someone gets votes and uses AtE as part of their defense it is scummy, specifically when the AtE outweighs the argument.

Again, what is scummy here is poor/failure to defend oneself, not AtE.

[Looker]

Let's talk dolls, shall we?

[ConfidAnon]

AtE is not scummy. Sorry. No one has ever explained why it is. I see CAs attempt, but it fails. Doubly to him using it as a conditional tell. The ignoring of BB putting him at a precieved L-2 getting not even a second thought is concerning as well.

I would argue that when someone gets votes and uses AtE as part of their defense it is scummy, specifically when the AtE outweighs the argument.

Again, what is scummy here is poor/failure to defend oneself, not AtE.

Well then sorry for using the wrong term. "poor/failure to defend oneself" was the point I was making, I just called it AtE because that was present in the post.

[Furry]

Its still not AtE... thats almost as big of a crap tell as "overdefensive". I am much more willing to lynch players pushing those on a case then the pushed, they are that bad of tells.

[ConfidAnon]

Its still not AtE... thats almost as big of a crap tell as "overdefensive". I am much more willing to lynch players pushing those on a case then the pushed, they are that bad of tells.

I'm not understanding the point that this post is making. It's not AtE, I called it the wrong name, so I'm scummy? You worded it kind of funny, sorry for the confusion.

[Furry]

Its still not AtE... thats almost as big of a crap tell as "overdefensive". I am much more willing to lynch players pushing those on a case then the pushed, they are that bad of tells.

I'm not understanding the point that this post is making. It's not AtE, I called it the wrong name, so I'm scummy? You worded it kind of funny, sorry for the confusion.

Ehhhh.... thats not what I think you think, or thought, or at very least acted on. Due to this...

I just simply missed your question.

I generally see Appeal To Emotion as a scumtell. It is a method used to avoid a lynch, and scum have the most motivation to avoid a lynch. It is true that townies do not want to be lynched either, but normally only newb townie's use appeal to emotion . . . and unless I am mistaken, EC is not a noob.

Which is you expanding on the "AtE" thing. There is no mention of 'avoiding defending onesself' or however I put it. This is an attempt to explain why AtE is scummy. And a conditional tell based on experience (something else I hate).

[ConfidAnon]

You said "poor/failure to defend oneself." Using AtE as a main part of your defense would definitely fall under that category.

[Furry]

You said "poor/failure to defend oneself." Using AtE as a main part of your defense would definitely fall under that category.

AtE is a complete null tell. Not defending oneself, while at times appears as a by-product of AtE, is something completely different. Its besides the point though.

You use AtE as an early reason to vote, and then expand on it without mentioning failure to defend. That is completely different then what I have been talking about, and what you are trying to make it out as what you voted on.

[ConfidAnon]

Well then sorry for using the wrong term. "poor/failure to defend oneself" was the point I was making, I just called it AtE because that was present in the post.

[Looker]

Thus furthering my current case that neither Confid or DRK are scum.

All I need is your opinion, Furry, whether you believe this case to be realistic or not.

[Raskol]

I'm about halfway read through at the moment. The only thing that stands out so far is that the amount of noise in this game is staggering. Luckily we have a lot of different votes made at least, which might be helpful once we have some flips.

Hoping the second half of what we have so far has some more immediately useful content.

[Looker]

No, not really.

[Kreriov]

Vote Count

BigBear (1) - EtherealCookie
don_johnson (3) - ZazieR Shrinehme Raskol
ConfidAnon (3) - Sanjay DeathRowKitty Furry

DeathRowKitty (4)

- ConfidAnon don_johnson BigBear Knight of Cydonia
Knight of Cydonia (1) - Looker

With 12 alive is takes 7 to lynch.

Looking for a replacement for EtherealCookie

(EC responded to the third prod to say he was dropping out. Oh well, yet another to add to my list of those I will never allow in another game or play with in a game)

Please ask friends if they would like to replace in.

DEADLINE SET: 10 Nov 2009 (Tues) @ 3pm EST

[BloodCovenent]

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

QFT

And third vote on a wagon is a scumtell.

No it's not, get your head out of the Wiki pages.

[Sanjay]

Hey, BC.

You replace in?

[BigBear]

Uhhh no, that's me. BC is my main. I use this account for modding.