888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[Stuart Whyte]

/confirm

[Stuart Whyte]

vote:Jaime Marcelle

For using a dice to determine your RVS vote to avoid responsibility for your actions.

Dice = anti-town

Because basing votes on contrary movie tastes will hold someone accountable for those votes in the future?

The idea is that just because you claim to vote for that reason doesn't mean its all there was to it. There are underlying decisions that scum have to make. ie: Whether to vote for each other or not. When you remove all decision making it removes the point of the RVS. How do you expect the game to move forward if everyone only random voted?

[Stuart Whyte]

Been edited by mod to remove saberwolf's post.

2 Use your alt moron.

[Stuart Whyte]

The idea is that just because you claim to vote for that reason doesn't mean its all there was to it. There are underlying decisions that scum have to make. ie: Whether to vote for each other or not. When you remove all decision making it removes the point of the RVS. How do you expect the game to move forward if everyone only random voted?

It is near impossible to have a RVS for the whole day unless everyone decided to beforehand. The reason for this is because

eventually someone would gain the courage to put a serious vote up and end the RVS on someone that put down a scummy RVS.

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

[Stuart Whyte]

vote Emile Buchard

[Stuart Whyte]

vote Emile Buchard

Please elaborate on this.

He smells like scum.

[Stuart Whyte]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Whyte Smells like serious scum. He pushed crap logic in an argument a back on page two. Sure, the argument went nowhere, but that's only because people didn't take it anywhere.

The whole "Smells like scum" bit does nothing to convince me that he should not be voted for right now.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

[Stuart Whyte]

What... The ... hell?

:sighgs at Stuart:

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Because the reason you are voting them is because they "Smell like scum". You give no reason why they smell like scum or anything. Seriously, if you vote someone give a goddamned reason! Why do they smell like scum?

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

I cannot prove your vote is random but since you give no reason other then "smells like scum" I am going to have to say it is.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

Since your so into this let's do it. Please prove that your reason isn't crap logic.

Seriously though, insted of telling the town to prove they are right. Why don't you prove that we are wrong. Try defending yourself. I think my mind is made up. I am going to

vote: Stuart Whyte

So a couple key points to touch on. You have no way of knowing that my vote is baseless or random/arbitrary. You cant think it all you want, you can even be quite sure of it, and you can vote me because of it, but please dont assert it as a fact </3. Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Well, in your post you only voted, and gave no justifications. Then, when asked about your vote, you said, "he smells like scum," again, without any justification. So does he literally smell like scum? Or has he been behaving in a scummy way? I have no clue because

you have provided no basis

for your vote.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Bolded emphasis mine.

You once again provided no justification, even when specifically asked. It appears pretty arbitrary to me, and I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't arbitrary.

If I was asserting that it wasn't arbitrary the burden of proof would be with me, but all I'm asserting is that you have no way of knowing whether it was arbitrary, baseless, or random. If you said you thought I had no base for my vote and voted me for it I would have taken little issue, mind you I still dislike being voted for bad reasons but, at least you wouldn't have been asserting something as truth that you had no way of knowing one way or another.

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Burden of proof fallacy. This is crap logic. The burden of proof falls onto you, anyway, since it's your vote. Proof to us that it's not baseless.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

This isn't even logic. This is just childish argument. I even have proof with me:

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

You said this, in response to this:

[...] eventually someone would gain the courage to put a serious vote up and end the RVS on someone that put down a scummy RVS.

You bolded the entire quoted part. He said, that eventually someone will either put down a serious or a scummy random vote, and you shot it down by saying if everyone "random" votes, there is technically no Scummy random vote. Not only did that only undermine half of what he said, but it's really just another childish "No it isn't" argument in disguise.

your play so far this game is basically just eveyrone arguing with you chiming in and saying "No it isn't. Nu-uhh!" Every once in a while.

people who choose not to, or in your case

refuse

to provide reasoning are scum AND anti-town. Please die.

Unvote, CONFIRM vote: Stuart Whyte

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch. And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument. As I see it undermining part of that argument "that there is a scummy random stage vote" undermines the whole argument as there is no vote for a person to take as scummy and vote seriously. More importantly if he admits its possible to have a scummy random stage vote otherwise, don't you see an issue with him skipping the whole thing? At this point I'll note that I also didn't random vote but thats because there was actual meat to the thread by the time I posted. As for the "no it isn't" point, I honestly don't no how to argue against it because I don't even understand it. I mean, I did provide a reason behind that argument and the entire basis behind his "no it isn't" point is that I'm not providing any reasons so yeah, colour me confused.


Sorry for any typos/spelling mistakes folks, too lazy to reread this.

[Stuart Whyte]

reasons!

#1 bad logic which means that he will be a prob latter on

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

#2 says his vote is on a player he thinks is scum and does not tell us why

This is pro-town.

#3 does not respond to just one to two votes very well. He seems slightly on edge. taking one vote this early should not make him so hyper.

How would you have prefered I responded?

#4 blew up a small issue into a big one. Never good to have a very small grain of dust become a nice hefty plank. Just admit it was an RVS vote or post a case.

that's all.

What issue?

I thought that did a decent job of answering everyones questions but to be clear: My vote is serious, I'd be happy to see him die atm. I have no intention of revealing why.

[Stuart Whyte]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

[Stuart Whyte]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

I've already explained how this idea is insane; but let me reiterate: not explaining votes is at best anti-town and at worst, and more probable, scummy. You've already said that the reason you don't want to explain your vote is because you don't want it to be refuted.

So, if you are town, you don't care about getting other people on board with your vote, and you don't want the other person to refute your claim and possibly prove his/her innocence (anti-town) and have no concern about a mislynch (anti-town and scummy).

If you are mafia, you don't want him/her to refute you because you already know he/she is town (obvscummy).

If you are some crazy day cop then you played it terribly. I'm still fine with lynching you, and if you do turn out to be a day cop (not likely) then we'll go after Emilie and I'll write your death off as the price of business.

If you would care to enlighten me on why not explaining votes is anti-town (outside of the ridiculous refuting argument) I would be more than happy to listen, or is explaining (in detail) anti-town behavior also anti-town?

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

There was some confusion here that I missed till now caused by a typo. That should read "Wait, you actually want

me

to refute his point? oh fine:"

Me not wanting to have my points refuted has very little to do with not stating reasons. I've never made any intentional claims about them being the reason.

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart White - The only possible explanation for your vote is that you are some sort of town power role who knows the alignment of Emile, or you are scum trying to get away with a ridiculous gambit.

This is a theme game, so odd roles are far from impossible. If you are such a role then claim, list your reasons, or drop your vote. I think it has become clear that no one else is going to vote based on your word, so you are clearly not going to get the lynch you want the way you're going.

If you were really interested in lynching scum, you would give us some reason to vote with you, but you have not. So if you want Emile lynched, how do you plan to do it?

I trust the town.

[Stuart Whyte]

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch.

Ad hominid only counts if I directly insult you. Like, for example, if I were to say you are mind blowingly incompetent.

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town

You mean allowing my opinion on others to be judged by other people to be fair or not? So that later, people are able to see how I felt about the townie that was bandwagoned? And then judge if I had ulterior motives to whatever I said about them or was honest or not?

It's Anti-Town to Provide reasoning, so then the most pro-town action is to of course vote for whoever we feel like and then not discuss anything until we're force to deadline lynch someone? Or just wait until Deadline passes over us and we have no lynch? Or should we just wait for scum to all bandwagon on someone and then have everyone follow, netting more and more mislynches as everyone stays equally scummy due to the inability to analyze the wagons?

Or should we just have a power role or whoever is the closest confirmed townie we could get on day one claim and just have him roll the dice repeatedly to decide the agreed lynch order? Forget arguments, and all that bullcrap, just leave everything to random chance. I mean, it's not like town's chances of hitting scum are explicitly defined as

Less than 50%

due to game rules.

I'd like to see your justification for why it is anti-town. I'd like to, but I'd certain you'd be content enough just being as vague as humanly possible in a game where the details matter.

Moving on...

Is english your first language? I don't say this with any intent of figuring out who you are but its very relevant. At any rate please don't put words in my mouth.

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument.

His argument is that a people will either put out a serious vote on someone, or put out a scummy vote on someone during the random stage.

let me stop you right here. That wasn't his argument.

Your argument is that if it's completely random, there is no such thing as a scummy vote. This fails to take into account that not everyone uses a dice roll, that scum are able to have game related reason for who they vote (whether to start a bandwagon, to not draw attention, etc.), AND that fact that even if there is no scummy random vote, no one in the game will ever go "Okay, this is going nowhere, I'm voting player X because I think his vote might have scummy intent behind it." It fails to undermine it simply because you present a theory that does not match you to reality at all.

In the following when I say random I mean diceroll random:

I wasn't saying everyone would actually use a random vote, I was using it as a thought experiment to show why random votes are anti town. The very fact that he suggested that the first wagon of the game should be against someone who makes a scummy arbitrary vote shows that he knew what he was avoiding.

Also, i don't really see where in that post there is a reason, or at least anything with backing evidence.

Will address when I know if english is your first language or not.

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

Which is good enough reason to not want you in the case of lylo.

This is fail logic. If you lynch me now then that is 1 more mislynch = it wouldn't be lylo but simply already lost.

I have no intention of revealing why.

Can you at the very least tell us why you have no intention of telling us?

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

Oh, okay then. Can you tell us why explaining votes is anti-town?

Might get around to it, might not. See how the game goes.

I trust the town.

The town doesn't trust you. If this is going to work out, we need to be able to work together and not keep secret from each other.

So you admit I'm town then?

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart: how is keeping your reason for voting hidden to the rest of us pro-town? Please explain.

@Stuart&Spencer: since there is no way to discover my identity from this info - cuz it is never stated in my real profile - I will make it clear right now that english is NOT my first language. So please explain me how is this relevant in Spencer's case, cuz I might see it, but I need to be sure.

Mod: I am not counting days, but Edward has disappeared ever since we started questioning his "plan". Would you please make sure to prod him as soon as allowed by the rules?

He misunderstood some things I can't see a native English speaker misunderstanding. Based on his typing I can imagine that he's not a native speaker in which case oh well. If he is a native speaker though then he really really needs to work on his reading comprehension or is scum.

[Stuart Whyte]

I've been avoiding answering that question for two reasons; 1 It would be a lot of work to formulate an articulate post explaining why and 2 I don't see it achieving anything except derailing the game in to heavy heavy theory talk. For now I don't really care if you believe its pro or anti-town. What's important when determining my alignment is what I believe. You are basically left with two options: I believe what I'm saying and am any alignment, or I don't believe what Im saying and am scum. If everyone promises to only use the reasons I post to judge my sincerity instead of arguing about it for pages then I will try and over come point 1, but atm I'm pretty sure its just going to degenerate in to the latter.

[Stuart Whyte]

Takes about 5 minutes to check that everyone has.

[Stuart Whyte]

I've been avoiding answering that question for two reasons; 1 It would be a lot of work to formulate an articulate post explaining why and 2 I don't see it achieving anything except derailing the game in to heavy heavy theory talk. For now I don't really care if you believe its pro or anti-town. What's important when determining my alignment is what I believe. You are basically left with two options: I believe what I'm saying and am any alignment, or I don't believe what Im saying and am scum. If everyone promises to only use the reasons I post to judge my sincerity instead of arguing about it for pages then I will try and over come point 1, but atm I'm pretty sure its just going to degenerate in to the latter.

Also, playing around jesters is bad play. Of the many reasons not to lynch me that shouldn't be one.

[Stuart Whyte]

Other than you smell like town and Emile smells like scum, what are these many reasons you speak of?

You forgot that I'm awesome as well.

[Stuart Whyte]

Yes, English is my first language. Go ahead and tell me in detail where exactly I'm wrong. I've really been wanting to hear what you think anyway, so please, say something useful.

let me stop you right here. That wasn't his argument.

Then what was his argument? You didn't even provide an alternative interpretation of his argument, you just said "No it isn't."

I wasn't saying everyone would actually use a random vote, I was using it as a thought experiment to show why random votes are anti town.

This still makes it a hypothetical that's removed from reality. I went back and read the quote in full.

-He said that unless everyone decide before the game to make it completely random, there would be a scummy vote, or a serious vote.
-You said that if everyone decided before the game that they would only use a random vote, then there would be no scummy or serious vote.

It fails to undermine it because it's premised on a very unlikely hypothetical.

If you lynch me now then that is 1 more mislynch = it wouldn't be lylo but simply already lost.

Except this assumes both that you're town and that lynching you doesn't allow us to find scum any sooner than lynching anybody else. And that's not even considering that apparent presupposition that you'd even make it to lylo in the first place.

So you admit I'm town then?

I never said you were town. I just said no one trusts you because you try to avoid saying things that would let us judge you.

I'd like to hear more from Leon about what he thinks on the people on the bandwagon if he thinks there's scum gunning after Stuart. It's a fairly easy wagon to jump on, I'll admit, but I don't like how he completely waffled in 100.

I didnt have time to respond to this when I first saw it then forgot about it.

I don't think I can properly communicate with you. I don't know what else to say. Perhaps its my english thats flawed, but we aren't speaking the same language.

[Stuart Whyte]

BULL SHIT, ALL BULL SHIT! Answer Jaime's question.
I don't think that there is a jester. I know this because I have played x-com and there is no place in that game for people wanting to die. No kamakaze or anything of that nature.
keep vote on white.

I have responded to his question even if I haven't answered it. I want feed back from the previously qouted portion before I go further with it.

[Stuart Whyte]

I have responded to his question even if I haven't answered it.

Oh okay. This is a good thing to remember. If someone asks me a question all I have to do is respond and that is sufficient even if I don't answer the question. Note to self: next time I am scum and get questioned, I'll just say "Nice weather today" below the quoted question. /sarcasm.

I want feed back from the previously qouted portion before I go further with it.

I don't even know what you want feedback on since your posts are riddled with incomprehensible nonsense. Who do you want feedback from? What specifically do you want feedback on?

That's not really fair. I didn't answer his question but what I said was relevant to it. Not all questions should be answered mindlessly.

I've been avoiding answering that question for two reasons; 1 It would be a lot of work to formulate an articulate post explaining why and 2 I don't see it achieving anything except derailing the game in to heavy heavy theory talk. For now I don't really care if you believe its pro or anti-town. What's important when determining my alignment is what I believe. You are basically left with two options: I believe what I'm saying and am any alignment, or I don't believe what Im saying and am scum.

If everyone promises to only use the reasons I post to judge my sincerity instead of arguing about it for pages then I will try and over come point 1

, but atm I'm pretty sure its just going to degenerate in to the latter.

[Stuart Whyte]

I suppose that's good enough for me. If lynching him isn't going to kill us then I'm willing to put my vote back for now.

Just because there's no obvious jester roles in X-Com doesn't mean that the mod hasn't been able to manufacture one. It lessens the possibility that a jester exists but it does not eliminate it.

Jesters should never be in games. Never. Never. Also I'm not one. Proper way to handle jesters is to forget they exist and get burned like 1/20 games. The effect it has on your scum hunting is too great in the other 19 to do anything else.

[Stuart Whyte]

I am defending myself.

[Stuart Whyte]

I have responded to his question even if I haven't answered it. I want feed back from the previously qouted portion before I go further with it.

what do you want feed back on? Why can't you give me a straight answer?

That's not really fair. I didn't answer his question but what I said was relevant to it. Not all questions should be answered mindlessly.

I'm assuming the bolded part is what you want me to answer isn't it? I do not like that part and I do not know why I didn't comment on it sooner. Sure, let's just talk about what you're giving us especially if what you're not giving us is equally if not more important.

Isn't a jester a town role? Or is it indy?

A jester is a third pary role that wins if they get lynched. It's kind of like the Sarah Palin of the mafa world.

Stuart, all we want is for you to tell us why you're voting emile or at least why you can't tell us. Is that too hard to ask?

I'm convinced people aren't actually reading the thread. I have no intention of explaining why I'm voting emile while the game is still running. My condition for explaining why I wont is that everyone agrees to use my reasons as a measure of sincerity instead of arguing over their validity for pages and pages.

I don't even know what your point addressing the bolded part is saying.

[Stuart Whyte]

Ok, so now you're putting conditions on whether or not you'll tell us anything. Normally I'd lose my mind over that, but at least we're getting somewhere.

I hereby

agree

not to debate the validity of whatever reason Stuart posts for more than a page, but reserve the right to bring it up later in the day if I deem it relevant.

Is that good enough for you?

What do you hope to gain by debating the validity at all?

[Stuart Whyte]

If you mean a list matching real accounts to in-game accounts I don't see the point of having the in-game accounts. If you mean just the list of players then that can be found in the mini theme queue and I've already been using it.

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart - If you post some blatantly bullshit reason I'm going to say it's not valid.

Will you please post now?

I don't like your need to hold on to that, but I also don't think my reasons are blatantly bullshit so I'll agree to those terms. But I still want everyone to chime in before I say anything.

[Stuart Whyte]

What exactly do you want us all to chime in on?

I'm pretty sure people are just fucking with me now.

[Stuart Whyte]

Stuart - here is a legitimate question for you that you may elect to answer: if for some reason we decide neither you nor Emilie, will you vote for Emilie tomorrow? Do you have any plans to vote for anyone else besides Emilie until she is dead?

I am capable of changing my mind. Up to now the games basically been stuff before my vote, and then everyone attacking me. I find it untrustworthy to use attacks against oneself to judge the alignment of players so no new info has really been provided.

[Stuart Whyte]

Stuart - here is a legitimate question for you that you may elect to answer: if for some reason we decide neither you nor Emilie, will you vote for Emilie tomorrow? Do you have any plans to vote for anyone else besides Emilie until she is dead?

I am capable of changing my mind. Up to now the games basically been stuff before my vote, and then everyone attacking me. I find it untrustworthy to use attacks against oneself to judge the alignment of players so no new info has really been provided.

Okay then... If everyone wasn't "attacking" you and someone else was obviously mafia (and not in a jester way) would you switch your vote? Or would it stay on Emilie?

I'd switch my vote. I'd switch my vote for a lot less than that too. My confidence in my emile vote is far from absolute.

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart(1): attacking players is unfortunately one of the better tools town can use on day 1, I guess. I do not think it is a bad policy, and I do not think it does not provide useful information. Would you explain me why you think so?

I don't disagree with this, I was just misunderstood. Attacking other players, and watching other players attack each other are great ways to judge alignment. It is very difficult to be impartial when you are the one being attacked though. As such I think using peoples attacks against you as a method of judging their alignment to be extremely faulty. For example atm if I were using that info I'd likely be voting spencer, but I'm afraid its just my own bias given that no one else seems to have any issue with him.

[Stuart Whyte]

My vote is serious, I'd be happy to see him die atm. I have no intention of revealing why.

I'd switch my vote. I'd switch my vote for a lot less than that too. My confidence in my emile vote is far from absolute.

Now you're back tracking. That is a legitimate scum tell, so your explanation now needs to be that much better.

Seriously, it's time to answer up or be lynched. You're at L-1, and this tight lipped stubbornness is not helping you make any friends here.

You know as well as I do that someone is going to hammer unless you start posting exactly what everyone wants to hear. I agreed to your "conditions," but I don't think anyone else is going to be so charitable.

Just because my vote is far from absolute doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to see him hang. I have not back tracked. I guess I can claim if I'm actually at L-1 give me a min to double check that.

[Stuart Whyte]

K, I'm bullet proof.

[Stuart Whyte]

@igor: Read. I never intended to suggest it was anything else.

@Jaime: Give me an example of what I'd be hiding? I'm glad you've agreed to the terms, but understand I'm not going to explain the reason behind my vote. At best I'm going to explain why I'm not going to explain the reason behind my vote.

[Stuart Whyte]

Edward got replaced... Damn, I would have liked an explanation for what he said.

Notes On Jester: Always always always assume there are none. Unless the mod specifically says there could be.

Other than you smell like town and Emile smells like scum, what are these many reasons you speak of?

You forgot that I'm awesome as well.

I'm sure he didn't forget.

I don't think I can properly communicate with you. I don't know what else to say. Perhaps its my english thats flawed, but we aren't speaking the same language.

"You don't know what else to say?" Seriously? Did you, you know, try refuting my arguments?

You're being Vague.
You're making excuses.
You're doing your god honest best to not help the town.
Getting you to say something should not be as hard as pulling teeth.

I don't like your need to hold on to that, but I also don't think my reasons are blatantly bullshit so I'll agree to those terms. But I still want everyone to chime in before I say anything.

I personally think this is all non-sense. Why are you not willing to tell us your reason for voting unless we all agree beforehand to say you're town just for providing it?

I'm skeptical on the bulletproof claim. Correct bulletproof play is to be as pro-town as possible, which he's obviously not in my eyes.

You don't speak the same language as me, I'm confident I can't deal with you but I'll give it one more shot. I never said you need to assume I'm town just for posting it, just that you wont argue the validity of my reasons. Judge my sinserity.

[Stuart Whyte]

flavour = I was trusted with some super secret new armour thats immune to sonic weapons and painted it like everyone else's diving suits.

[Stuart Whyte]

I don't like how pm quoty this is getting, I'm gonna run further responses threw malt.

[Stuart Whyte]

Oh wait, he said his armor makes him immune to sonic weaponry. We have a sonic cannon, not a rope.

This is why it's important what your role PM actually calls you.

I've pmed the mod some questions. I'm waiting on him for answers. I had initially assumed I was only nk immune, but given the lynch flavour and the wording of my pm I might also be unlynchable(how cool would that be) I doubt it though. When he responds I'll answer. Also, I'm ignoring the question because only 3 people have agreed to my terms, there are 11 in the game, get the number up to 7-8 and I will talk.

[Stuart Whyte]

Also, I'm ignoring the question because only 3 people have agreed to my terms, there are 11 in the game, get the number up to 7-8 and I will talk.

Agreed to your terms? This isn't a bloody hostage situation, why don't you just answer the questions directed at you? Pro-town players engage in active discussion, anti-town players do not.

Hate to break it to you but not all discussion is pro-town. I'd rather get lynched now than get lynched anyway after a week of arguing the validity of my claims only to have the deadline as an easy excuse. At least this way scum on my wagon have to man up. Now if the town agrees to not get bogged down with the validity that's a different story cause we can get threw the matter fast enough to have time to actually decide things before deadline. I'm gonna laugh so hard if I'm unlynchable. *crosses fingers*

[Stuart Whyte]

Hate to break it to you but not all discussion is pro-town.

I didn't say that all discussion is pro-town, but your style of complete non-discussion of the actual issues that matter is most definitely anti-town.

What issues are those?

[Stuart Whyte]

I know you won't address them, but your reasons for being convinced that Emile is scum would be a good start.

What was your reason for bringing it up then? And in the manner you did? More importantly if this is the only issue I'm avoing why is 'issues' plural in your post?

[Stuart Whyte]

False dilemas suck. Also, would you have had me lie about my claim instead? I am at L-1 after all.

[Stuart Whyte]

Not unlynchable, and my rank in Captain. This is all I've been approved to say.

[Stuart Whyte]

I love you. There is no reason on earth for Stuart to be alive right now. If he's lynch-immune that would make him virtually immortal, which I don't think the mod would do.

This post troubles me. A lot.

Emile - do you have any reason to suspect why Stuart is targeting you?

Emile - what will you think if Stuart flips town?

Stuart - assuming for the moment you are town, if Emile is lynched are you actually going to help the town in scumhunting? Is your lack of providing any reasonable case unique to Emile, or is this something we could expect the rest of the game? Granted, I'm not saying your answer is going to change my opinion of you, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this lunacy.

Stuart - is you keeping your "secret" benefiting the town? If so, how?

My method of play is not isolated to Emile. I don't know what 'secret' you mean?

[Stuart Whyte]

My method of play is not isolated to Emile.

So say we lynch Emilie today. Tomorrow you are going to vote someone else and not explain it or offer any reasoning?

I don't know what 'secret' you mean?

Seriously? Are you being intentionally difficult? Your "secret" of why you are voting for Emilie.

I have no intention of giving reasons for any votes I make in this game.

I wasn't being intentionally difficult. I've said my condition for revealing why I don't want to reveal my reasons behind a vote many times now, so I assumed you were talking about something else.

@Gerhard: I'm both scum hunting and defending myself, just because I'm not doing either like you would doesn't change that I am.

[Stuart Whyte]

You will agree that, since we have to assume you are not new to this game, it is pretty natural to think that you are faking this.

I wont agree to this. Why is it natural to think that?

[Stuart Whyte]

Please don`t hammer untill much closer to deadline. There is still information to be had. For example:
@everyone on my wagon: If I'm lynched and come up town who will you suspect because of it?

[Stuart Whyte]

Answer: no one because you won't pop town. Also this topic will never get closed for nights, so why should we keep you around? you are at l-1 your current claim is that you are a cpt. with lynch proof armour and won't make a case on anyone. their are two things wrong with this:
1) no-one can be lynch proof it undermines the whole reason of lynching (plus inside x-com there is no scuh thing that lets you take unlimmited shots. The best stuff can get you one shoted from the back or front anyday).
2) Not making cases is anti-town at the core.

I don't want to sound lynch-o-happy but this can't stand.

You don't think there are any scum on my wagon? I bet 1-2 are. There should be a method for determining who they are.

I didn't claim to be lynch proof. My claim went like this:
Me: I'm pullet proof
Someone: what the flavour?
Me: My armour is immune to sonic weapons
Someone: but we lynch with a sonic weapon
Me: let me check with a mod I doubt I'm unlynchable though
Me: Yep I'm not unlynchable.

[Stuart Whyte]

the topic of his claim has been old and stupid since two pages ago. Keep up, boy.

The problem with the Bandwagon on Whyte is that anyone can jump on it with little to no repercussions. yes, there are scum on the wagon, but at this point it's impossible to tell the differences between town and scum on there. Lynching him would be almost as anti-town as letting him live and lynching someone else.

I again get the impressoin that you know I'm town.

@Igor: I know I'm town so humour me here. Which 2-3 on my wagon do you think are scum atm(assuming I'm town)?

@Everyone: I'd also like to hear from everyone else who they think is scum on my wagon should I be town.

[Stuart Whyte]

Lynchproof is both speculation, and confirmed not part of his role. Stop talking about it.

Just a point of order: it isn't confirmed. The confirmation is from an alleged conversation between the mod and Stuart.

Please don`t hammer untill much closer to deadline. There is still information to be had. For example:
@everyone on my wagon: If I'm lynched and come up town who will you suspect because of it?

I think you are qualified to answer this question as well: who do you think is scum on your wagon? And why?

Also:

Vote: Reveal

I've already given my opinion on using wagons against oneself as a means to judge alignment. I will use the information gained from this question to offer my final opinion before I die(Yes, wishful thinking aside, I'm fairly sure I'm getting lynched, just trying to make the best of it)

[Stuart Whyte]

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I'd like a response from everyone on the matter before my lynch please.

[Stuart Whyte]

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I suppose it would be futile to ask why?

completely.

[Stuart Whyte]

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I'd like a response from everyone on the matter before my lynch please.

Again, when I hear a reason for it I can talk about it.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear but I think I was misunderstood here. What I meant was: That list is very temporary and could easily change depending on how people answer my question(about who the scum on my wagon are) Its that question that I want a response on. Not commenets about this scum list.

[Stuart Whyte]

Oh, alright. Then my answer is still the same. I will look into that if you flip town. However, seriously though, do you mind telling us why you can't explain your votes. If you die and flip town we lose all that knoledge. If you were onto something good we will lose that knowledge forever.

My reasons aren't game specific. Discussing this belongs in MD. Even if I could convince everyone in here that I am right given infinite time I seriously doubt I could do so before the deadline, and doubt even more my ability to do so and find a suitable lynch. Because of this any discussion of the validity of the points I raise really is anti-town. It's quite obvious everyone is pressuring for my reasons only to discuss their validity, as such I have no intention of revealing them until more people agree not to do so.

[Stuart Whyte]

@Tracey - What makes this a better lynch than Stuart? There is no guarantee we have a vig, or even a cop for that matter, and it would literally sicken me to see Stuart get away with this strategy.

Let's say that these lynches are of equal value, and we find each just as scummy. Emile doesn't have any ties to any other player, and his flip really won't give us any information about Stuart. However, if Stuart flips scum, it is unlikely that Emile is scum also, and I he flips town it gives his stubborn tunneling slightly more credit. I'd feel more comfortable with lynching Stuart than Emile.

My reasons aren't game specific.

Now this is the first bit of significant info we've had from Stuart all day. Reasons not being game specific can only mean his reasons do not come from this game. That means that he has some kind of interaction with Emile outside this thread, which means they either have some means of communicating (i.e. Town/mafia aligned lovers, masons, a scum team (unlikely), or some flavor based roles which they are forbidden to claim) or Stuart knows Emile's alternate acount, or has some other kind of info which he is prohibited from having, or his reasons are bullshit and he's leading us on. None of these options lead me to not want to lynch him, except maybe the first, but that is essentially a shot in the dark, so there is no reason to place any store in it.

Tracey, I see your reasoning, but it is not enough for me to take my vote off of Stuart.

I kind of understand the misunderstanding that happened here, my fuck up. But given the rest of the content of that paragraph I don't know how you didn't realize I fucked up. The reason there is "reasons for not explaining votes", not "reason for voting Emile", which is obviously game specific. I don't know how a serious vote could ever be game independent.

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart - Well if it is just theory, which is the only non game specific reason I can think of, then what is the point of concealing it?

I've said this many times. I'm pretty sure people aren't reading, or at least understand, what I'm writing. I\m not intending to put all the blame on you guys, maybe I'm just not being articulate enough, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Debating theory that isn't game specific isn't at all useful. If I present my points they will be debated. I don't see side tracking the thread into theory talk for the rest of the day only to be deadline lynched as being more useful than what I'm presently doing.

[Stuart Whyte]

Why do you expect that I would have unvoted Emile if my vote was based on a medium strength read?(which is the case btw pretty sure I've made that clear in thread)

[Stuart Whyte]

Why the fuck did you hammer? There was still 4 days of talking to be had. Fuck.

[Stuart Whyte]

Wow, thats all I have to say.