Mini 945: Mafia in Bawlmer - GAME OVER

[MacavityLock]

Wait. Why are we lynching MacavityLock again? Did I miss something?

From what I can tell, most of the votes he's picked up have been from people who didn't like the way in which he went after me before about the question I put to Ythan.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly true about Cyberbob and Ythan, though given that I was questioning Cyberbob to begin with, there may be a measure of OMGUS in his vote.

As for SC:

MacavityLock has made some weak as heck cases on Sidekick and Chevre.

Nothing to do with my questioning of Cyberbob, SC already admitted that my case on Sidekick didn't suck, and I have made it clear that my Day 1 case on Chevre was pure gut and at no point merited a vote. (It has now, but again, I don't think that's the point.) He needs to give a better reason for keeping his vote on me.

And Chevre:

This is a poor vote, but it was an attempt to start discussion (which worked nicely), and you outlined what little suspicion I had on you in your post.

where I said

Thus far, you've said that the following is why I'm scummy:

For what I commented on earlier about the hammer (although that's decently explained) and what you've done today.

You haven't said anything about what I've been doing today, nor why it's scummy. You thought that my failing to hammer issue was scummy (and didn't say why), but did not find either Cyberbob or Dizzle scummy for doing the exact same thing.

So, you know, she admits that she has no case and L-2'ed me for discussion.

At least 2 of the votes on my wagon are awful, and a 3rd might be OMGUS.

----

The major thing I have against xvart is the difference between his ISO 10 and 11 posts. In 10, he declares DC failtown but in 11 he says he's ready to hammer DC which he eventually does. Granted, some things occured during 10 and 11 but it felt like scum giving up on his partner to me....and apparently no one else.

But xvart wasn't the only one to do this. At least one other person did in Cyberbob. (See his iso 10 & 12 vs iso 14.) One could make the case that you did too.

Do you think that the DiamondCrash thing is failtown or scum?
Can you list the two players you're most suspicious of and why? ...

1. Well, it's definitely fail no matter what his alignment because he's likely going to be lynched for it, nevermind the potential outing.
2. Oph ...
Sidekick ...

Your answer to (1) is pretty fence-sitty. And given that DC isn't in your list of two suspects, it's not obvious to tell where you stand on him.

I don't see what makes xvart's turn-around that much worse than some other player's.

----

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

This is twisting my words. I NEVER said that Cyberbob was scummy for not hammering. I have no problem with the fact that he didn't hammer. I was pointing out that Chevre questioned (and voted) me for it, while she did not do the same to others.

----

Chevre still has questions that have been posed to her that she hasn't answered.

[Ythan]

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

This is twisting my words. I NEVER said that Cyberbob was scummy for not hammering. I have no problem with the fact that he didn't hammer. I was pointing out that Chevre questioned (and voted) me for it, while she did not do the same to others.

How am I twisting your words exactly?I said

-xvart votes
-for bob
-agreed with Lock
-who is scummy

[Ythan]

Oh and I forgot to paste this.

Certainly true about Cyberbob and Ythan

Explain this in a way that doesn't make it look like you're brushing off every part of the accusations against you except what you can twist into something ridiculous.

[MacavityLock]

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

This is twisting my words. I NEVER said that Cyberbob was scummy for not hammering. I have no problem with the fact that he didn't hammer. I was pointing out that Chevre questioned (and voted) me for it, while she did not do the same to others.

How am I twisting your words exactly?I said

-xvart votes
-for bob
-agreed with Lock
-who is scummy

xvart is picking up on something that I asked Chevre about and running with it against Cyberbob. xvart is voting Cyberbob for a reason I haven't endorsed and I do not agree with.

Certainly true about Cyberbob and Ythan

Explain this in a way that doesn't make it look like you're brushing off every part of the accusations against you except what you can twist into something ridiculous.

I don't understand the issue. Cyberbob said that all votes on me have to do with my questioning of him earlier in the Day 2. I have pointed out that 2 of the votes on me really don't have anything to do with that.

[Cyberbob]

I'm happy to be corrected on that point Macavity, it's hardly a major one.

[MacavityLock]

Yes, that's fine. I wanted to be sure that yours was not the only answer out there to Neto's question of why I'm the big wagon at the moment.

[Amished]

lukepukeduke replaces Apayah effective immediately.

I don't have the ability to edit anything out, nor do I have access to Konowa's role PM's (but I do know the roles). I've given him what I know.

Also, since I found a replacement so quickly, the deadline will not move by more than a day depending on luke's catching up speed (which I doubt would take long to get through 14 pages at this point.)

tl; dr version: lukepukeduke is in for Apayah, no change to the deadline is expected, but might have one extra day.

[lukepukeduke]

Hello everyone,

This is my second mafia..
I will be reading through 14 pages and posting again in about 2 hours... I have to eat dinner in between reading

I will be happy to answer any questions..

[StrangerCoug]

As for SC:

MacavityLock has made some weak as heck cases on Sidekick and Chevre.

Nothing to do with my questioning of Cyberbob, SC already admitted that my case on Sidekick didn't suck, and I have made it clear that my Day 1 case on Chevre was pure gut and at no point merited a vote. (It has now, but again, I don't think that's the point.) He needs to give a better reason for keeping his vote on me.

I ceded that your Sidekick case was decent after I made the post you quoted, and I still see no case on Chevre. I also don't remember you being as reactionary as you were in posts 274 and (especially) 290.

[MacavityLock]

...I still see no case on Chevre. I also don't remember you being as reactionary as you were in posts 274 and (especially) 290.

See my isos 26, 28, and 30 for my Chevre case.

By reactionary, do you mean defensive? All I have to say to that is that I don't want to get lynched, and the way the game was going (me as L-2 big wagon, no one else commenting on it, approaching deadline), that looked like the way it was going to go. Does me not wanting to get lynched make me any more likely to be scum?

[StrangerCoug]

...I still see no case on Chevre. I also don't remember you being as reactionary as you were in posts 274 and (especially) 290.

See my isos 26, 28, and 30 for my Chevre case.

I can see your line of thinking in 26 (question dodging), as I can in 28 (vague vote reasoning). The tone may be rubbing me the wrong way in 28, but I'll get to that. I think what you mention in 30 (and elsewhere) is an honest mistake, but that's difference in opinion.

By reactionary, do you mean defensive? All I have to say to that is that I don't want to get lynched, and the way the game was going (me as L-2 big wagon, no one else commenting on it, approaching deadline), that looked like the way it was going to go. Does me not wanting to get lynched make me any more likely to be scum?

I was shooting more for panicky than defensive. You'd think that nothing's wrong with saying you don't want to be lynched, but it tells me you're concerned about self-preservation.

xvart is still suspicious and I'm not afraid to switch votes if he is a more viable wagon.

[Ythan]

xvart is picking up on something that I asked Chevre about and running with it against Cyberbob. xvart is voting Cyberbob for a reason I haven't endorsed and I do not agree with.

I didn't say a single thing about what you did or did not do.

[MacavityLock]

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

Then what was the point of saying this, if it wasn't about associating me with xvart's vote?

[Ythan]

Criticizing xvart. Pretty obviously too.

[MacavityLock]

Why mention me then?

So xvart votes bob

in agreement with scummy Lock

regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

Does that change make a difference?

Also, how is this critical of xvart?

[Ythan]

I mentioned...that he did what he did...regarding you...

[MacavityLock]

I don't see how that answers my questions.

[Dizzle]

But xvart wasn't the only one to do this. At least one other person did in Cyberbob. (See his iso 10 & 12 vs iso 14.) One could make the case that you did too.

Fair enough, xvart's just stood out to me because of how immediate the flip was.

And all, I think, Ythan is saying is that he is criticizing xvart for agreeing with you, who he finds scummy.

[Ythan]

I answered your questions but you're really dense.

[MacavityLock]

Yeah, you really didn't answer my questions. Stop being snide and answer them.

The thing that I said and xvart is agreeing with is a fact. That Cyberbob did not hammer in that post is a fact. How does it make sense to criticize someone for using that fact in his own argument?

[Ythan]

I'm not going to spoon feed you. If you have a follow up to ask that's one thing but if you're just going to keep saying "No not like that" then I'm not going to walk you through this.

[MacavityLock]

I have asked how your criticism of xvart makes sense. You haven't answered it once, not even a little bit. Now stop being petulant and calling me names, and answer this legitimate question.

[Ythan]

I have answered your question. At this point I am going to ignore you for as long as you continue to repeat yourself.

[MacavityLock]

Then I'll ask you to quote where you have answered how your criticism of xvart makes sense. You probably won't, whatever, and which point, I'm done too and I'll let others weigh in.

[xvart]

Hello everyone,

Welcome. Looking forward to your observations.

But xvart wasn't the only one to do this. At least one other person did in Cyberbob. (See his iso 10 & 12 vs iso 14.) One could make the case that you did too.

Fair enough, xvart's just stood out to me because of how immediate the flip was.

And all, I think, Ythan is saying is that he is criticizing xvart for agreeing with you, who he finds scummy.

The thing about it was I didn't even read it as a critical post, more of an observation or restatement of what I said (although it seems like a passive aggressive linking between Macavity and I).

I didn't catch it at the time but I find it suspicious when someone says they agree with the wagon, wouldn't support the hammer, but won't actually hammer himself. Is there something townish about that statement that I am missing?

xvart.