Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[Lateralus22]

Buh?

Explanation of Dalt stuff:

Fitx gives case against Dalt, I am in agreement Dalt does look scumm, at this time not checking the Meta link (See... I may have said it before, but... I hate freakin' meta, I REFUSE to read it, catch me here? I also don't expect someone else to balls it up so spectacularly), and agree that what Dalt's done is somewhat scummy.

Someone else then points out the gaping holes in Fitz' logic... and I proceed to realize the mistake in pushing the Dalt case immediately afterwards. How the hell is realizing I made a mistake in attacking Dalt and backing off scummy?

Sigh… this isn't about back off the dal case… this is about citing something as evidence when you can't even be bothered to read it… the links weren't even about comparing one's style and seeing how people play… it's just straight up did dalt play in a game or not…

Game theory = bad town play. I did it myself in a previous game, and realized afterwards. Game theory is best left to the MD forum, placing it in the game threads just wastes time and... oh yeah, distracts sodding town!

If distracting town is bad why did you participate in that?

First let's get one thing straight, I haven't ever said Wendy was "OBV" town. town and obv town are two different things. Yes all my reasoning is the final conclusion from seeing wendy is town and then trying to find out the reasons for what he did. I don't even understand some of your points, it's focused more on the reasons for wendy's actions not how they give evidence for his role.

So… an attempt to buddy is obviously pro-town trying to get reactions? It's easy to say that in hindsight because we know he was town, at the time it was scummy. Simple as that.

No it isn't evidence to being town. In fact when he did so this did bother me, but yes I do believe the getting reactions was pro town. It gave out more information for the town to use.

That's suggesting everyone who is scum plays the game the same. This is not true.

Is vote analysis a way that will help town catch scum?

Of course there were "reasons for wendy's posts", but there's reasons for scum posts too. You can't honestly tell me that what you've posted so far is proof wendy was obv. town here. You've actually only proven so far that, beyond creating an excel sheet, wendy was being useless (and the excel sheet is close to that too)

sigh… why would I go back and try to find scum reasons for his actions? It's just going to waste time, I'm not trying to convince wendy was a good townie I'm just trying to explain the reasons for his actions. No this isn't proof of wendy being town these are the reasons I think of knowing that he's town. I'm telling you the why not the what.

Yeah, because scum never quickly back up on something and claim it was to catch scum do they? This is not a defence for his actions, and only looking back in hindsight.

Yeah, I guess, it can go either way. The reason I gave fits more of a townie gameplay, a scum game play would be too risky.

Yeah… considering I had to repeat myself back to him countless times, and am now doing so to you, I know the feeling. But I try not to lose my cool over it, y'know?

You didn't understand what he was saying.

Why didn't I claim anyway? Because... y'know... I laughed at it and moved on. If I believe someone is just joking I'll simply laugh and move on, instead of taking it seriously. But you've even said there are multiple possibilities (the one I just said is the true one of course, but why let that get in the way of you posting the only one that keeps up your "Prana is scum" bollocks?)

Yes there are, the situation's like a pizza, take or add what toppings you want. Should I really make a list of? Wendy was town, that is a fact. Again I'm not trying to prove wendy was town, I'm trying to explain his actions, it's ok if you don't agree with that. Now knowing wendy was town do you have any explanations for his questions that doesn't lead to Prana is scum?

I don't remember specifics at this moment in time and I'm not about to go checking back through the thread solely to prove something that is pissing ridiculous to ask. Unless you are going to ask everyone on both wagons to provide exact reasons why they voted for someone at the exact time they did.

Look, I asked those questions for a reason. They will let everyone know wether your vote was opportunistic or not. If you don't want to explain that's fine, but it doesn't help you.

Simple answer: I found wendy scummiest in the game at that point, thus I voted for him. Is that not how this game works? How are we suggesting that me voting for someone who was utterly useless and distracting being scummy? Why are you not pushing everyone on that wagon if he was so obviously town and just me?

Simple answer: It was a good point in the game for you to switch your vote on wendy. It doesn't require an original thought and you had the support of other people. Is not a good place to put your vote? I want to know what the situation was and how wendy changed your view. Sigh… again this really isn't that much about wendy, you already know the others factors that play in.

These two things go together, and wendy's defence? I thought it was you and Nexus? I just felt at the time you were likely town arguing. Again, it is not beneficial for town to have pro-town players revealed because that allows scum to know how they're doing, and allows scum to know who definitely needs killing that night. It helps scum, and doesn't really help town all that much.

How do they go together? This really seems to be close to offtopic.

Not about forgetting "past suspicions" but all about "I didn't really follow him from the point I got hung up with wendy", and as I've repeatedly said, this is bad town play, and I accept that, calling me scummy for it is stretching to a hideous degree.

I don't see how I'm stretching it at all. Wendy and Xite were the two top lynches. You were ready to lynch both, wendy exploded, went after the easiest target. If you said you were all for an Xite lynch why would you later say that nothing really stuck out to you?

See, this is how you're deliberately trying to paint me in a bad light, you keep saying I forgot, when really if I "forgot" to do something it was to stop following Xite after wendy picked up, so can we please stop saying I "forgot" Xite was scummy, and state the truth that I felt wendy was scummy, but that I had also said I still felt Fitz had done enough earlier with pushing Dalt to appear scummy, and that CA still felt off to me. But shall we forget all that in favour of "it was only wendy or Xite", because anything else harms your case right?

Actually… these questions were more towards a bad townie mindset. Did you forgot Xite was scummy? Yes or no? Can you give me evidence to support your claims?

No. Stop trying to bend things to fit your opinion here. I'm getting sick of it.

If I was so willing to participate in the lynch of him... Why did I refuse to jump to it? fucksake. The entire "you were willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on" is rendered totally null and void by that one small fact that I DIDN'T LYNCH HIM. Sweet jesus.

That isn't true. I like Latin and I'm willing to finish my homework today. Just because I decide that my English homework was more important to finish today and that I could only finish one of the two subjects doesn't mean I wasn't willing to finish my Latin homework.

So you putting words in my mouth repeatedly is perfectly okay and normal? (Just check through the post I'm replying to, you did it a few times) But the second you can claim I'm doing the same to you it's scummy scum scum? Riiiiight.

I haven't put words in your mouth, I took what you said and drew logical conclusions from them. Either directly quoting what you said or paraphrasing.

You are saying I should lie because I dared to be honest about how I went from pushing Xite, to not pushing Xite. Again, was it good town play? No, course not, and I think the rest of the game would agree. Does it make me scummy? No.

Never said you should lie. From pushing Xite to not pushing Xite it doesn't likely at all that a townie would forget their accusations an even say that their earlier suspect did nothing that stuck out.

What you are suggesting I should have done is continue to push the case on Xite so that I did not appear to have backed off from it, doing that would be claiming I had a case when, by that point, I didn't. Basically I either lied and pushed a cash, or I did what I did do, and that's stopped pushing the case and... get called scummy for it? What? That makes no sense. Your case thus far doesn't make any sense.

This is false, my attack on you for forgetting about Xite shows the opposite. You forgot everything you did and went after the easiest target, am I missing something?

How's about... when I said I was second on the wagon it was through not checking it and taking you saying LmL voted and then I did as stating I jumped on the wagon second. I wasn't about to go hunting to find out exactly what number on the wagon I was, and so I took what you said about it and used that. So no, not lying. What is it with you and effing lying?

Either way, I don't really care where I was on the wagon, all I care about is I was voting someone who was the scummiest player on day 1 in my eyes. Done deal.

I don't remember saying you were second on the wagon, if I did show me. You are saying that were on the wagon second as a defense for your vote not being opportunistic. What am I supposed to think when that is turned out to be a lie and that the reason you gave was a lie. You even stated that voting 3rd or 4th would be opportunistic, does this mean you are saying your vote is opportunistic?

No, I'm not. I said he was a good lynch AT THAT TIME.

Are you suggesting someone who is a good lynch at point A in the game HAS to therefore be a good lynch come point H in the game? Because that's what you're suggesting to me here.

When someone's a good lynch that means they've done scummy things. Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

Dalt case, read above.

You also lied about your vote being second as a way to defend yourself on the accusation that your vote was opportunistic.

No, it is what you said, you asked me where my notes were and if I'd saved them. I have no notes, thus if I'd simply said that you would start harping on about not having a case to begin with, blah blah blah. We already know this, and it's damned obvious.

Ah… so you did that anyway? Nicely done that man.

The last two quotes were supposed to read at the same time because they were on the same point.

I thought you said you had a case, that implies you have reasons to believe someone is scum. It would make sense for someone to write this stuff down. You said you lost track of the case and didn't have time to properly go over it. This implies that there is a physical case and that you didn't go over it. All I want to know is if that is true. No need to be angry. Now tell me if there is any misunderstanding?

Right back at ya buddy. But you're right... I need to start working out who scum are, thankfully I think I have a nice easy start thanks to your tunneling.

What point am I missing?

This is good! I expect to see what conclusions you draw, and I do also expect to see any thoughts you have on who my scum partner would be if I was scum. Do you have any others things you'd like to point out?

Now where is everyone else? Let's get some more votes on Prana and look for his partner.

This quote has 3 points

Where is everyone is looking at the activity of the thread, as you can tell there isn't very much now. I want everyone to be more active.

Let's get some more votes on Prana is clear. Prana's scum so why not vote him?

and looks for his partner applies that we should be looking for Prana's partner. This will take attention away from Prana and look at other suspects.

Wrong there, you asked everyone to hop on my wagon. That's not asking everyone to be active, that's trying to get people to join you.

It is doing both, you can look my explanation above for that.

So… scum hunting... scum number 1 would be...

vote: Lateralus22
Tunelling, blatant putting words in my mouth, and pretty much using hindsight to make his case on me in regards to saying how obv. town wendy is.

Tunneling - I am having a conversation with you am I not? I have about 3 or 4 posts against you for the day, now since you're using tunneling as a point against me what do you think about the nexus situation? From your viewpoint you can argue that I tunneled Nexus there so why did you not point it out?

blatant putting words in my mouth - please show me where I'v done so. I'v already explained my points against you are using quotes or I am paraphrasing. I suggest you show the evidence, a nice this is where he put words in my mouth section of your posts would be helpful. Please post text examples to support your claims.

and pretty much using hindsight to make his case against me in regards to saying how obi. town wendy is - This is not true. You asked me to explain wendy's actions and I did. I never once stated wendy was OBV town. Yes I did have the belief he was town. The post parts about wendy had little to do with how your scum, please do not misunderstand me. I was trying to explained the why to wendy's actions to show his reasons for what he did, I was not trying to prove wendy to be town, I don't recall ever saying I was.

Cue "Obvious scum with an OMGUS vote" response... now!

Very interesting, I probably would have called out on OMEGUS but it's really the reasoning you've had that bothers me more as point one isn't very strong at all, and I am confused as to why you had not called me out on it earlier since by your definition of tuning I had down it before, point two I can't find the putting words in your mouth, and point three is a complete misunderstanding that has little to do with you. The point you made is very interesting.

[Lateralus22]

Llama are you willing to lynch Prana?

Also I think it's too late in the day, there is a possibility that scum will use my situation with Prana as a way to start a WIFOM which I do not want. Also since Prana's scum we should lynch him.

[PranaDevil]

I'm only going to comment on relevant stuff, because this is going on way too long, and it's going to be a bastard for anyone wishing to re-read later on. I also want to, tomorrow, have a look in a few other places instead of getting hung up over a simple back and forth that is us both going over old ground constantly.

Sigh… this isn't about back off the dal case… this is about citing something as evidence when you can't even be bothered to read it… the links weren't even about comparing one's style and seeing how people play… it's just straight up did dalt play in a game or not…

It wasn't though, because the link being there showed that Dalt was "in" a game previously. It was later evidence that proved that while he was, in theory, in the game, he wasn't actually playing it and was replaced quickly (like here). It's a completely different issue once that was brought in. I did not need to click the link initially because... well surely that would be logical enough to assume that whoever posted the link wasn't lying about him being here?

If distracting town is bad why did you participate in that?

Yes or no, have I not repeatedly said that was bad town play on my part? Yes... yes I have, there is zero reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again is there?

First let's get one thing straight, I haven't ever said Wendy was "OBV" town. town and obv town are two different things. Yes all my reasoning is the final conclusion from seeing wendy is town and then trying to find out the reasons for what he did. I don't even understand some of your points, it's focused more on the reasons for wendy's actions not how they give evidence for his role.

My problem with it, is that it's solely looking at it in hindsight, what you are suggesting is that scummy or poor play can be simply explained away as good play after they're gone and shown to be town. This is not true. Thus just because wendy flipped town, it does not mean to say his play was actually any good.

Is vote analysis a way that will help town catch scum?

Depends on whether scum in this game play the same as scum in random game A. Scum take on a variety of forums, some push a case heavily and spend the day tunnelling, others hedge their bets and throw stuff around at everyone, throw everything that's in the middle of that too, and there's your answer.

Or basically, it depends on the scum players. Some are more vote happy than others, some are more opportunistic, and some are more willing to lie low by being the first on a wagon and just seeing how the ground lies.

Of course there were "reasons for wendy's posts", but there's reasons for scum posts too. You can't honestly tell me that what you've posted so far is proof wendy was obv. town here. You've actually only proven so far that, beyond creating an excel sheet, wendy was being useless (and the excel sheet is close to that too)

sigh… why would I go back and try to find scum reasons for his actions? It's just going to waste time, I'm not trying to convince wendy was a good townie I'm just trying to explain the reasons for his actions. No this isn't proof of wendy being town these are the reasons I think of knowing that he's town. I'm telling you the why not the what.

I'm not asking you to find scum reasons for his actions. I'm pointing out that you suggesting that he had reasons, is suggesting scum wouldn't have a reason for those same actions. Ergo it doesn't add up. Okay, he was town... but what he was doing was anti-town in more ways than one, and I've explained why.

Yeah, I guess, it can go either way. The reason I gave fits more of a townie gameplay, a scum game play would be too risky.

Doesn't that bring in a two ton lump of WIFOM?

Yeah… considering I had to repeat myself back to him countless times, and am now doing so to you, I know the feeling. But I try not to lose my cool over it, y'know?

You didn't understand what he was saying.

Let's say I smelt what he was cooking, and it was grade A monkey crap /rock

Yes there are, the situation's like a pizza, take or add what toppings you want. Should I really make a list of? Wendy was town, that is a fact. Again I'm not trying to prove wendy was town, I'm trying to explain his actions, it's ok if you don't agree with that. Now knowing wendy was town do you have any explanations for his questions that doesn't lead to Prana is scum?

How's about... oh I dunno... wendy was going off all guns blazing at someone who didn't go all out agreeing with him, and in fact was dismissing his crap as worthless (which most of it was)?

Put it this way, say I'm the lynch today, or I get night killed, does that mean our entire exchange and my vote on you all adds up to "Lateralus is scum, no two ways about it"? Of course not. It means nothing more than we had an exchange and there's a possibility I was on the right track, but absolutely nothing more. It's not an outright fact that because Player A was town and had an exchange with Player B, that Player B must be scum.

Simple answer: I found wendy scummiest in the game at that point, thus I voted for him. Is that not how this game works? How are we suggesting that me voting for someone who was utterly useless and distracting being scummy? Why are you not pushing everyone on that wagon if he was so obviously town and just me?

Simple answer: It was a good point in the game for you to switch your vote on wendy. It doesn't require an original thought and you had the support of other people. Is not a good place to put your vote? I want to know what the situation was and how wendy changed your view. Sigh… again this really isn't that much about wendy, you already know the others factors that play in.

You don't put words in my mouth? Riiiiight.

These two things go together, and wendy's defence? I thought it was you and Nexus? I just felt at the time you were likely town arguing. Again, it is not beneficial for town to have pro-town players revealed because that allows scum to know how they're doing, and allows scum to know who definitely needs killing that night. It helps scum, and doesn't really help town all that much.

How do they go together? This really seems to be close to offtopic.

Okay... seriously now? Seriously?

These two things go together because they are talking about the exact same damned hting, and you've been avoiding that fact ever since your first post.

You state I didn't give what I said about the you/Nexus situation, I have stated why (It's bad town play to announce who appears to be town), and I also stated that I pointed out I did (when questioned by you) state I felt you were both town, but refused to expand beyond that.

THAT'S IT, that's the entire thing. But you've been treating them as two seperate things right from the off.

I don't see how I'm stretching it at all. Wendy and Xite were the two top lynches. You were ready to lynch both, wendy exploded, went after the easiest target. If you said you were all for an Xite lynch why would you later say that nothing really stuck out to you?

Because after wendy exploded stupidly (lol, easy target... more like scummy play, but whatever), I focused more on wendy.

Are you suggesting good town play would be to still be for a Xite lynch late in the game but only have a case for the first half of the game day?

If yes, then it's shitty play.

If no, then thank you for agreeing with me, can we move on?

No. Stop trying to bend things to fit your opinion here. I'm getting sick of it.

If I was so willing to participate in the lynch of him... Why did I refuse to jump to it? fucksake. The entire "you were willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on" is rendered totally null and void by that one small fact that I DIDN'T LYNCH HIM. Sweet jesus.

That isn't true. I like Latin and I'm willing to finish my homework today. Just because I decide that my English homework was more important to finish today and that I could only finish one of the two subjects doesn't mean I wasn't willing to finish my Latin homework.

What? You're basically suggesting that while I could have easily jumped on Xite and guarenteed he was lynched. The fact I continued to push for a wendy lynch and was actually annoyed people couldn't see why he should be the lynch candidate over all else is somehow scummy?

WHAT?! You are making zero sense to me here. I wanted Xite lynched... yet refused to jump on his wagon, and pushed heavily for the wendy one instead? How does that make sense if I wanted to lynch Xite? What the freakin' hell man?! Make some god damned sense because you're actually annoying me with your point blank refusal to listen to any kind of logical issue here.

I haven't put words in your mouth, I took what you said and drew logical conclusions from them. Either directly quoting what you said or paraphrasing.

Except for all those times that your "paraphrasing" has actually been "here's what your mindset was at this point". Which isn't paraphrasing, it's bullshitting and putting words in my mouth.

This is false, my attack on you for forgetting about Xite shows the opposite. You forgot everything you did and went after the easiest target, am I missing something?

That much of an easy target that Xite got lynched and not wendy right?

Are we now to assume that anyone acting so anti-town and scummy should never be lynched because if they're town then people who were pushing it were only going for "the easiest target"? Are we suggesting we should all now go and target someone who has done nothing scummy and try and push them for nothing at all, because they're not the "easy target"?

Holy balls.

I don't remember saying you were second on the wagon, if I did show me. You are saying that were on the wagon second as a defense for your vote not being opportunistic. What am I supposed to think when that is turned out to be a lie and that the reason you gave was a lie. You even stated that voting 3rd or 4th would be opportunistic, does this mean you are saying your vote is opportunistic?

Why all the "you lied, rawr!" bollocks?

I took what you were saying at face value (rather stupid I suppose, maybe I'm generally too trusting that people wont balls something up spectacularly), and assumed that what you meant by voting after LmL meant I was second on the wagon. If I was 4th, I was 4th, all I knew was wendy wasn't at L-1 and I voted him. Done.

When someone's a good lynch that means they've done scummy things. Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

Show me where I said that Mr. "I don't put words in your mouth".

What DOES happen though, is that later in the game when others have done scummier stuff in my eyes, they become a better lynch over someone who I only noticed seeming scummy early on, and failed to keep track on after wendy exploded.

Xite's early play I found very suspect. Xite's late play I failed to get enough of a read on as most of my attention went to wendy. Are we clear on this yet?

The early scummy play doesn't "vanish" but I REFUSE to lynch someone if I don't have a solid read on them. When I was keeping close tabs on all players I spotted scummy play from Xite. When my attention got drawn to wendy I wound up not keeping a close eye on Xite, which means, amazingly enough, I no longer had what I felt to be a solid read on him.

Does this make sense or do we need another go round of you completely missing my point here?

Early read - check. Would lynch.
Late read - Not there, wont lynch without it.

It's all about the point in the game, you are deliberately missing it.

No, it is what you said, you asked me where my notes were and if I'd saved them. I have no notes, thus if I'd simply said that you would start harping on about not having a case to begin with, blah blah blah. We already know this, and it's damned obvious.

Ah… so you did that anyway? Nicely done that man.

The last two quotes were supposed to read at the same time because they were on the same point.

I thought you said you had a case, that implies you have reasons to believe someone is scum. It would make sense for someone to write this stuff down. You said you lost track of the case and didn't have time to properly go over it. This implies that there is a physical case and that you didn't go over it. All I want to know is if that is true. No need to be angry. Now tell me if there is any misunderstanding?

I know they were the same point, I was being facietious.

I've already said I don't keep notes. So how am I going to have a "physical case" my cases come from reading people in ISO. I dunno, maybe it would be easier to keep tabs on all players, but to be honest, that would be WAY too much work for a game. If I'm playing in 4 or 5 games at a time, I don't need to have a notepad file for every player in each game just to keep track of them, if someone wants to do something like that, then fine, go for it. But I wont.

Thus, my "case" on him was from what he posted and reading over it. You are making out that because I don't "write this stuff down" that it's somehow scummy on my part by using it in a case against me.

Now where is everyone else? Let's get some more votes on Prana and look for his partner.

This quote has 3 points

Where is everyone is looking at the activity of the thread, as you can tell there isn't very much now. I want everyone to be more active.

Let's get some more votes on Prana is clear. Prana's scum so why not vote him?

and looks for his partner applies that we should be looking for Prana's partner. This will take attention away from Prana and look at other suspects.

Actually, what it said to me was:
First bit, same as you.

Second bit same as you.

Third bit "Prana's obviously scum, so who is his partner".

Sorry, but that's scummy. If I wind up lynched today I would hope to hell everyone turns on you tomorrow, because you've admitted that you are tunnelling on me, and are admitting to not going to look for "other" scum, but solely anyone who could be "Prana's partner", this is not pro-town play, this is tunnelling play. What happens when I'm shown to be town? Do you go "oh, sorry" and move on? You should be looking elsewhere as well because there's no definite answer on who is or isn't scum. Deciding that one player is scum and refusing to consider otherwise is crap play.

Yeah, hypocritical 'cause of my play against wendy previously, whatever. I'm just pointing this out to you, and your tunnelling is uber-scummy.

Tunneling - I am having a conversation with you am I not? I have about 3 or 4 posts against you for the day, now since you're using tunneling as a point against me what do you think about the nexus situation? From your viewpoint you can argue that I tunneled Nexus there so why did you not point it out?

Because at the time it felt like two town going at it, the fact you're doing it again after your nexus case fell through, and to someone different, hoping to get more support this time is, in my mind, telling. Thus I'm pointing it out now.

blatant putting words in my mouth - please show me where I'v done so. I'v already explained my points against you are using quotes or I am paraphrasing. I suggest you show the evidence, a nice this is where he put words in my mouth section of your posts would be helpful. Please post text examples to support your claims.

Have done twice in this post alone, that's just a single post, but if you honestly want me to rip you a new one by pointing them all out, I shall endevour to do so when I wake up tomorrow.

and pretty much using hindsight to make his case against me in regards to saying how obi. town wendy is - This is not true. You asked me to explain wendy's actions and I did. I never once stated wendy was OBV town. Yes I did have the belief he was town. The post parts about wendy had little to do with how your scum, please do not misunderstand me. I was trying to explained the why to wendy's actions to show his reasons for what he did, I was not trying to prove wendy to be town, I don't recall ever saying I was.

You were solely using hindsight, and stating that wendy's actions basically show how town he was IN HINDSIGHT. Suggesting that I was attacking wendy for anything other than finding him scummy is ridiculous, and suggesting wendy was attacking me for anything outside of attacking him is just as ridiculous because that's exactly how it went.

Very interesting, I probably would have called out on OMEGUS but it's really the reasoning you've had that bothers me more as point one isn't very strong at all, and I am confused as to why you had not called me out on it earlier since by your definition of tuning I had down it before, point two I can't find the putting words in your mouth, and point three is a complete misunderstanding that has little to do with you. The point you made is very interesting.

I'd say the point I made was rather bang on target.

[Lateralus22]

It wasn't though, because the link being there showed that Dalt was "in" a game previously. It was later evidence that proved that while he was, in theory, in the game, he wasn't actually playing it and was replaced quickly (like here). It's a completely different issue once that was brought in. I did not need to click the link initially because... well surely that would be logical enough to assume that whoever posted the link wasn't lying about him being here?

Weren't you curious about the conditions of the game and how long ago it was?

My problem with it, is that it's solely looking at it in hindsight, what you are suggesting is that scummy or poor play can be simply explained away as good play after they're gone and shown to be town. This is not true. Thus just because wendy flipped town, it does not mean to say his play was actually any good.

So now we're going to argue about whether wendy was a good town or not? I tried to explain Wendy's actions just as you had asked, it wasn't being used against you. Yeah, someone being town doesn't make their play good however when someone is proven town it highly suggests they had a town mindset in mind.

I'm not asking you to find scum reasons for his actions. I'm pointing out that you suggesting that he had reasons, is suggesting scum wouldn't have a reason for those same actions. Ergo it doesn't add up. Okay, he was town... but what he was doing was anti-town in more ways than one, and I've explained why.

I disagree, I've explained why.

Doesn't that bring in a two ton lump of WIFOM?

Which is why I didn't use that as a sole reason for Wendy being town when he was in the game. Even while he was in the game I considered the possibility of him being scum.

Let's say I smelt what he was cooking, and it was grade A monkey crap /rock

What?

How's about... oh I dunno... wendy was going off all guns blazing at someone who didn't go all out agreeing with him, and in fact was dismissing his crap as worthless (which most of it was)?

Put it this way, say I'm the lynch today, or I get night killed, does that mean our entire exchange and my vote on you all adds up to "Lateralus is scum, no two ways about it"? Of course not. It means nothing more than we had an exchange and there's a possibility I was on the right track, but absolutely nothing more. It's not an outright fact that because Player A was town and had an exchange with Player B, that Player B must be scum.

Didn't look like that to me, I'll read over his posts again to see,

Ah I think I get your point, you're still completely misunderstanding me. I'm not saying your exchange with wendy makes you scum. I was explaining why WENDY thought you were scum. That's very different from saying your exchange with wendy made you scum.

You don't put words in my mouth? Riiiiight.

Right

Okay… seriously now? Seriously?

These two things go together because they are talking about the exact same damned hting, and you've been avoiding that fact ever since your first post.

You state I didn't give what I said about the you/Nexus situation, I have stated why (It's bad town play to announce who appears to be town), and I also stated that I pointed out I did (when questioned by you) state I felt you were both town, but refused to expand beyond that.

THAT'S IT, that's the entire thing. But you've been treating them as two seperate things right from the off.

Yes seriously, do a better job explaining if you want me to understand.

Ok so this is what I've understood from your post,

Me - didn't talk about Nex / Lat
Prana - Gave a one liner saying you did

Alright but… how does this prove your town?

Because after wendy exploded stupidly (lol, easy target... more like scummy play, but whatever), I focused more on wendy.

Are you suggesting good town play would be to still be for a Xite lynch late in the game but only have a case for the first half of the game day?

If yes, then it's shitty play.

If no, then thank you for agreeing with me, can we move on?

Wendy was town, now you're saying it was scummy play to explode. This means that scum can justify attacking wendy because his exploding was scummy. that makes him an easy target.

The rest of your points there are many variables to take into account and it's very situational so it's difficult me to answer.

What? You're basically suggesting that while I could have easily jumped on Xite and guarenteed he was lynched. The fact I continued to push for a wendy lynch and was actually annoyed people couldn't see why he should be the lynch candidate over all else is somehow scummy?

WHAT?! You are making zero sense to me here. I wanted Xite lynched... yet refused to jump on his wagon, and pushed heavily for the wendy one instead? How does that make sense if I wanted to lynch Xite? What the freakin' hell man?! Make some god damned sense because you're actually annoying me with your point blank refusal to listen to any kind of logical issue here.

What's with the first point? Wendy was an easier target so you went after him. (For your sake read as scummy since it appears to me you are refusing to acknowledge wendy as an easy target for scum, if this is not true tell me)

If scum wants to lynch two people they will attack the easiest target to lynch. Do you disagree with this?

Sigh at the second thing you say…

There was a point in the game you thought both Wendy and Xite were good lynches. Wendy explodes being an easier lynch and you go after him. Can you understand?

Except for all those times that your "paraphrasing" has actually been "here's what your mindset was at this point". Which isn't paraphrasing, it's bullshitting and putting words in my mouth.

Show me, these are the quotes I am using. It's either these that I've been making logical conclusions from or the posts you are using to respond to me right now.

So right now I'd be all for a Xite lynch.

I also find Adendy and Xite scummy

however I'd be happy with a Xite lynch too at this stage.

Not got a strong read on Xite, and will need to do an ISO to check him, so will do that come next day phase.

As for Xite, I don't know, most of the recent game has been wendy distracting the fuck outta me because I've been stuck arguing the second most stupid and ridiculous argument I've ever been a part of on this site (and 3rd overall).

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is, mainly because wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

That much of an easy target that Xite got lynched and not wendy right?

Are we now to assume that anyone acting so anti-town and scummy should never be lynched because if they're town then people who were pushing it were only going for "the easiest target"? Are we suggesting we should all now go and target someone who has done nothing scummy and try and push them for nothing at all, because they're not the "easy target"?

Holy balls.

Sigh… both are town so scum want to lynch them. both have done scummy things that scum can use to get them lynched. Are you trying to tell me that Xite stuck out more to you?

Not even sure where you're getting your second point from. Are you trying to tell me scum will want to lynch someone who hasn't done anything scummy?

Why all the "you lied, rawr!" bollocks?

I took what you were saying at face value (rather stupid I suppose, maybe I'm generally too trusting that people wont balls something up spectacularly), and assumed that what you meant by voting after LmL meant I was second on the wagon. If I was 4th, I was 4th, all I knew was wendy wasn't at L-1 and I voted him. Done.

The post was written in a neutral tone, no need to be so defensive. Since you bring it up though, you lied, rawr.

The letter m is after l, are you going to assume the letter l is the second letter of the alphabet?

Xite's early play I found very suspect. Xite's late play I failed to get enough of a read on as most of my attention went to wendy. Are we clear on this yet?

Then why did you say this?

As for Xite, I don't know

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is, mainly because wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

The early scummy play doesn't "vanish" but I REFUSE to lynch someone if I don't have a solid read on them. When I was keeping close tabs on all players I spotted scummy play from Xite. When my attention got drawn to wendy I wound up not keeping a close eye on Xite, which means, amazingly enough, I no longer had what I felt to be a solid read on him.

So you forgot the scummy things Xite did?

I know they were the same point, I was being facetious.

Please do so more clearly, I don't want any misunderstandings.

Thus, my "case" on him was from what he posted and reading over it. You are making out that because I don't "write this stuff down" that it's somehow scummy on my part by using it in a case against me.

Sigh… alright, does this also mean you have cases on everything player in the game since you can do the same thing for every player?

If I'm using this as a case against you I must be doing a pretty bad job considering my last post was trying to clear up a misunderstanding and that Im willing to drop it if it is.

Sorry, but that's scummy. If I wind up lynched today I would hope to hell everyone turns on you tomorrow, because you've admitted that you are tunnelling on me, and are admitting to not going to look for "other" scum, but solely anyone who could be "Prana's partner", this is not pro-town play, this is tunnelling play. What happens when I'm shown to be town? Do you go "oh, sorry" and move on? You should be looking elsewhere as well because there's no definite answer on who is or isn't scum. Deciding that one player is scum and refusing to consider otherwise is crap play.

I'll be very, very confused. Your crappy play will also lose the town a day. If I believe you are scum why wouldn't I try to get you lynched, why wouldn't I look for your partner? If something sticks out about another player that I think is scummy then I'll probably attack them for it.

Because at the time it felt like two town going at it, the fact you're doing it again after your nexus case fell through, and to someone different, hoping to get more support this time is, in my mind, telling. Thus I'm pointing it out now.

Why didn't you point this out when I was attacking Xite, is it only scummy if I'm tunneling you? Why didn't you reference me tunneling Nexus and Xite when you made your point?

Have done twice in this post alone, that's just a single post, but if you honestly want me to rip you a new one by pointing them all out, I shall endevour to do so when I wake up tomorrow.

Please do that.

You were solely using hindsight, and stating that wendy's actions basically show how town he was IN HINDSIGHT. Suggesting that I was attacking wendy for anything other than finding him scummy is ridiculous, and suggesting wendy was attacking me for anything outside of attacking him is just as ridiculous because that's exactly how it went.

So what are you trying to say. Explaining the reasons for a proven townie's actions is scummy? It's ok that you thought he was scummy and that you didn't understand the reasoning for why he did things. Now that I explained I think you won't be confused.

I'd say the point I made was rather bang on target.

Ah no that's not what I was talking about. Your comment come across to me as a in before or I'm going to point out something I do that you think is scummy before you point it out and it reminded me of this game where scum said a similar thing, post #258 http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6#p2065966

Before you go on about how meta is bad and all I'm simply pointing this out as interesting, it isn't really that solid to have you lynched for this.

So Prana, since you want to move this away from the conversation between me and you, who do you think is scum?

[Lateralus22]

Show me where I said that Mr. "I don't put words in your mouth".

No, I'm not. I said he was a good lynch AT THAT TIME.

Are you suggesting someone who is a good lynch at point A in the game HAS to therefore be a good lynch come point H in the game? Because that's what you're suggesting to me here.

There ya go

Here's my response that I posted earlier,

When someone's a good lynch that means they've done scummy things. Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

The whole dismissing someone being a good lynch at point A and saying they have have to be a good lynch at point H comes across as you saying that just because it's point H that it's difference. It's also noted that point H is later on in the game because you dismiss someone being lynched at point H it sounds like you're saying the scummy things they did at point A vanish.

[Leech]

First off Lat's case is extremely solid as Prana has blatantly contradicted himself. I do not buy Prana's "I've changed my opinion" stance, as he clearly stated at one point that he was comfortable with a Xite lynch, then later claimed to not have much of a read on him at all. This is a scum-oversight, not a simple change of opinion. When you are opportunistically voting (his early "gambit" anyone?) you tend to lose track of things you've said previously in the game. He did not say he was comfortable with his vote on Xite, he said he as comfortable with a lynch, at that point. If you later don't have much of a read on a player, how can you have previously been comfortable with a lynch? I don't buy it. I would vote for Prana for this, but Llama scumslips pretty badly right here:

Never did. I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though.

Vote: LlamaFluff

Seriously, how is the player that caused the hammering vote going to claim to unvote to force a no lynch? That makes no sense at all. If he wanted to force a no-lynch he would have refrained from voting. Considering his vote literally caused the lynch, that statement is a bold faced lie.

@Nightwolf if we can't get a majority near the deadline, then I'd rather a no lynch than lose two townies again.

What? While we did mislynch in the last phase, that only counts for one of the townie deaths. In every night phase of the game there will be a town death, due to the game's structure. Unless we hit scum we will always lose two townies. What does a "majority" have anything to do with this? The majority can be wrong, and the majority can be composed of scum. I don't see how this comment is relevent, and anything other than fense sitting on the subject until you see which side wins.

As for your WIFOM post to begin with (that Leech "agrees with", which gives me greater pause)

I agreed with IAU that it is odd that you didn't mention it when he first said it. In fact you made it a point to say that it

never

sits well with you when people say they are likely night kills, so you should always have a jerk reaction to it, right? The fact that you didn't react, or mention, it until the next phase is odd.

Still need to finish rereading, but I think I ought to put a vote out somewhere, so

VOTE: Leech

Interesting.

It is very rare for that to not be either a 10:2 or a 8:2:2 setup. Once it is discovered to be a unique setup, scum would be paying more attention to the setup, and this was something that fitz did not do.

Did you not see the last time I quoted the first mountainous game where a slip, much like HF's, was a goon? Anyone who says that scum would be more familiar with the setup than town seriously needs to look at the last four posts of the first page, and then look at who the scum was.

[PranaDevil]

Weren't you curious about the conditions of the game and how long ago it was?

No. Please listen to me on this point instead of ignoring what I am saying.

I did not feel need to because it was put across as "Dalt has played here before, here's proof" and I took that at face value. What part of "I don't use meta" is hard to understand here?

It was WHEN the evidence came up that I not only backed off the case, but started looking at the issue of Dalt more logically and argued that case with Fitz. That's the entirety of it, there's no hidden agenda, there's no "You say that, but you mean this" like you keep suggesting with half of your case on me, that's everything to do with it.

Me - didn't talk about Nex / Lat
Prana - Gave a one liner saying you did

Alright but… how does this prove your town?

How does it prove I'm scum? You need to be showing why it makes me scum, not me showing why it makes me town.

Want to know what it makes me? Clever for not giving scum more information than they need.

Wendy was town, now you're saying it was scummy play to explode. This means that scum can justify attacking wendy because his exploding was scummy. that makes him an easy target.

The rest of your points there are many variables to take into account and it's very situational so it's difficult me to answer.

Are you therefore suggesting that town players should never attack someone who is looking like obvious scum?

It's a null tell is what it is, at least at this stage of the game. If later in the game you can prove someone has been bouncing their vote around on any popular wagon, then hey, go for it... but after they apparently did it a single time, when they feel someone is scum? No... not really a stronge case there.

What's with the first point? Wendy was an easier target so you went after him. (For your sake read as scummy since it appears to me you are refusing to acknowledge wendy as an easy target for scum, if this is not true tell me)

You are refusing to acknowledge that wendy appeared scummy, if this is not true, tell me.

If scum wants to lynch two people they will attack the easiest target to lynch. Do you disagree with this?

Depends if it would look scummy to do so. If it would be diving on someone they've spent all game defending to that point, I highly doubt they'll jump on the case.

There was a point in the game you thought both Wendy and Xite were good lynches. Wendy explodes being an easier lynch and you go after him. Can you understand?

wendy becomes scummier and I focus on him more, and less on Xite. Can you understand?

Sigh… both are town so scum want to lynch them. both have done scummy things that scum can use to get them lynched. Are you trying to tell me that Xite stuck out more to you?

Not even sure where you're getting your second point from. Are you trying to tell me scum will want to lynch someone who hasn't done anything scummy?

No, I'm telling you that, by what you are suggesting, I shouldn't have voted for wendy for being scummy, because voting someone who appears scummy, who then flips town, is scummy.

That makes no sense. By that token we should never wagon someone unless we're 100% positive, in which case why aren't you attacking anyone who hopped on the Xite case? It would appear he was the easier lynch by the end of the day.

The post was written in a neutral tone, no need to be so defensive. Since you bring it up though, you lied, rawr.

The letter m is after l, are you going to assume the letter l is the second letter of the alphabet?

You know full well this misses the point about as much as England did during the world cup.

Then why did you say this?

As for Xite, I don't know

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is, mainly because wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

The early scummy play doesn't "vanish" but I REFUSE to lynch someone if I don't have a solid read on them. When I was keeping close tabs on all players I spotted scummy play from Xite. When my attention got drawn to wendy I wound up not keeping a close eye on Xite, which means, amazingly enough, I no longer had what I felt to be a solid read on him.

So you forgot the scummy things Xite did?

Okay, this is getting effing ricockulus.

EARLY DAY I found him scummy.

LATE DAY I hadn't been following his play close enough to have a read for that portion of it.

So no, it doesn't vanish, I never suggested for once Xite's play vanished, but if I have a stronger read on wendy, and have stopped paying close attention to Xite's play, I will REFUSE to give a read on that player. It would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch a player I do not have a read on.

All this bollocks about "You didn't have a strong read on him and wanted to lynch him" is just that, utter bollocks. At the time I wanted to lynch him I had a scum read on him, at the time I said I didn't... lo and behold, I hadn't been following him, and it's anti-town at the very best to continue to push someone's lynch at that point.

So understand that, I wanted a lynch on him when he felt scummy, and when I got tied up with wendy I wound up not paying as much attention elsewhere as I'd have liked. My mistake? Too damned right, I've said it before. But IT DOES NOT MAKE ME FREAKING SCUMMY. Stop moving the goal posts.

What you are suggesting is that when I no longer had a read on Xite I was pushing for his lynch, and that is completely untrue, and massive fabrication that you know you have created.

Sigh… alright, does this also mean you have cases on everything player in the game since you can do the same thing for every player?

If I'm using this as a case against you I must be doing a pretty bad job considering my last post was trying to clear up a misunderstanding and that Im willing to drop it if it is.

No idea what you mean here, I'm assuming you mean do I have a case on every player... and of course not, I like to think of myself as intelligent (though readily admit I often have trouble getting my point across), but I'm not able to keep tabs on everything every player does, that means re-reads and checking what's said etc. likely multiple times. But that's how I play. I always thought that was how the majority played if I'm honest with you.

I'll be very, very confused. Your crappy play will also lose the town a day. If I believe you are scum why wouldn't I try to get you lynched, why wouldn't I look for your partner? If something sticks out about another player that I think is scummy then I'll probably attack them for it.

Ah, so me defending myself, and not actually doing anything scummy is my crappy play? Or could it be you're hoping I'll make an easy target and you can swing people onto my wagon? You attacked me for pointing out wendy's play was crappy, but now you're saying mine is, hypocritical don't you think?

Why didn't you point this out when I was attacking Xite, is it only scummy if I'm tunneling you? Why didn't you reference me tunneling Nexus and Xite when you made your point?

What part of "I had stopped closely following Xite" are we still missing?

So Prana, since you want to move this away from the conversation between me and you, who do you think is scum?

You, for one, for what I feel is a pretty poor case, but I will have to take a look elsewhere, considering I'm repeating myself almost every time I reply to you, it becomes rather draining.

The whole dismissing someone being a good lynch at point A and saying they have have to be a good lynch at point H comes across as you saying that just because it's point H that it's difference. It's also noted that point H is later on in the game because you dismiss someone being lynched at point H it sounds like you're saying the scummy things they did at point A vanish.

I'm saying that the things they did between point A and point H weren't closely followed, and not done so enough to get a solid read on them, ergo it would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch them SOLELY for their contributions leading up to point A.

Or are you somehow suggesting it would be great town play to only have half a case on someone and still lynch them for it? Because that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting I should have done at the moment.

[PranaDevil]

A nice little list of misreps and cramming words in my mouth, courtesy of Lat. (And this was done while skim reading, so it's possible there's a couple I missed).

Putting words in my mouth:

Whoa dude, I thought you wanted to lynch Xite. If you were willing to lynch Xite why the PranaDevil wouldn't you have a strong read on him?

Oh wait it's because both candidates were town and you wanted to pick the more obvious and more likely to be lynched for the day's lynch right?

Putting words in my mouth:

You saw fitz's post and figured that would get Dalt lynched, you didn't investigate further because that isn't required in your scum win condition.

misrep

How strange, that you would be willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on. Only to forget about your earlier thoughts you had on him later when it suited your needs.

Putting words in my mouth (Via wendy now):

There are multiple possible answers for this, the one Wendy probably thought of

Scum - Ha ha IAU I see through your gambit and it won't work!

Misrep:

can I really only expect you to be suspicious of one person for being scum and being lynched?

Putting words in my mouth:

you're feeling slipped is just another way to say you forgot everything that happened and went after the easiest target is it not?

Misrep:

Simple answer: It was a good point in the game for you to switch your vote on wendy.

Misrep:

Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

Also, returning back to this:

Now knowing wendy was town do you have any explanations for his questions that doesn't lead to Prana is scum?

What about "wendy was wrong", otherwise we are suggesting that should either me or you flip town, the other "has" to be scum by default, which would be ridiculous, would it not?

[Lateralus22]

No. Please listen to me on this point instead of ignoring what I am saying.

I did not feel need to because it was put across as "Dalt has played here before, here's proof" and I took that at face value. What part of "I don't use meta" is hard to understand here?

It was WHEN the evidence came up that I not only backed off the case, but started looking at the issue of Dalt more logically and argued that case with Fitz. That's the entirety of it, there's no hidden agenda, there's no "You say that, but you mean this" like you keep suggesting with half of your case on me, that's everything to do with it.

Alright first off, the evidence was all there in the thread havingfitz posted. Second I can't imagine any pro town player not investigating something someone claims to be as evidence for any another, and then wave that link citing it was proof that dalt lied.

How does it prove I'm scum? You need to be showing why it makes me scum, not me showing why it makes me town.

Want to know what it makes me? Clever for not giving scum more information than they need.

Right, ok, still kinda confused but I'm dropping this point then.

Are you therefore suggesting that town players should never attack someone who is looking like obvious scum?

It's a null tell is what it is, at least at this stage of the game. If later in the game you can prove someone has been bouncing their vote around on any popular wagon, then hey, go for it... but after they apparently did it a single time, when they feel someone is scum? No... not really a stronge case there.

First off nooooooooo, never said that, give me a direct quote. Also let's say there's a vi in the game doing scummy or anti town things, scum can very easily justify their vote against them for a lynch, that doesn't make them not scum.

Second point mehh, when you did it it does come off opportunistic to me.

You are refusing to acknowledge that wendy appeared scummy, if this is not true, tell me.

I can completely understand why you think wendy is scummy, and when wendy was in the game I disagreed without that. Now that's a clever way to avoid the question isn't it? Do you believe scum might possibly try to get wendy lynched?

Depends if it would look scummy to do so. If it would be diving on someone they've spent all game defending to that point, I highly doubt they'll jump on the case.

Do you think it would look scummy to try and get wendy lynched?

No, I'm telling you that, by what you are suggesting, I shouldn't have voted for wendy for being scummy, because voting someone who appears scummy, who then flips town, is scummy.

That makes no sense. By that token we should never wagon someone unless we're 100% positive, in which case why aren't you attacking anyone who hopped on the Xite case? It would appear he was the easier lynch by the end of the day.

Nope, never suggested that at all. you realize there's more to my opportunistic point that he voted wendy he must be scum lulz? It was the situation you were in and how the transition between FoS and vote was. It also factored in Wendy's character plus the evidence supplied against along with factoring other player's opiniones that could change your view.

Are you really suggesting that Xite was the easier lynch? It took a lot of effort on the part of the Xite wagon to make sure he was lynched and not wendy.

Okay, this is getting effing ricockulus.

EARLY DAY I found him scummy.

LATE DAY I hadn't been following his play close enough to have a read for that portion of it.

So no, it doesn't vanish, I never suggested for once Xite's play vanished, but if I have a stronger read on wendy, and have stopped paying close attention to Xite's play, I will REFUSE to give a read on that player. It would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch a player I do not have a read on.

Hmmm, this quote suggests otherwise.

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to

Remember Prana before this you had said you were willing to lynch Xite.

All this bollocks about "You didn't have a strong read on him and wanted to lynch him" is just that, utter bollocks. At the time I wanted to lynch him I had a scum read on him, at the time I said I didn't... lo and behold, I hadn't been following him, and it's anti-town at the very best to continue to push someone's lynch at that point.

So understand that, I wanted a lynch on him when he felt scummy, and when I got tied up with wendy I wound up not paying as much attention elsewhere as I'd have liked. My mistake? Too damned right, I've said it before. But IT DOES NOT MAKE ME FREAKING SCUMMY. Stop moving the goal posts.

What you are suggesting is that when I no longer had a read on Xite I was pushing for his lynch, and that is completely untrue, and massive fabrication that you know you have created.

Sigh… still not seeing how more information will equal to a weaker read. Your views on someone alignment may change but the read itself I disagree, that being said are you willing to give evidence to support your view on Xite as a weaker read, possibly post a few examples in the game that led you to not think he was scum?

Oh also I am suggesting that at the time you wanted to lynch Xite you didn't have a strong read, nothing more, nothing less.

No idea what you mean here, I'm assuming you mean do I have a case on every player... and of course not, I like to think of myself as intelligent (though readily admit I often have trouble getting my point across), but I'm not able to keep tabs on everything every player does, that means re-reads and checking what's said etc. likely multiple times. But that's how I play. I always thought that was how the majority played if I'm honest with you.

You spoke of the case against Xite and said you didn't look over it. That suggests that there was physical case, if not please clearly say what you mean so there are no more misunderstandings. I guess we both agree that this is a misunderstanding?

Ah, so me defending myself, and not actually doing anything scummy is my crappy play? Or could it be you're hoping I'll make an easy target and you can swing people onto my wagon? You attacked me for pointing out wendy's play was crappy, but now you're saying mine is, hypocritical don't you think?

I was speaking about your play as a whole, really the major difference between you and Xite and Wendy is at least the two of them were scum hunting in their own way. You're either keeping all your information secret or you are lacking in that area. I don't think you're an easy target at all, it took a bit of effort to get all this evidence against you.

Not sure exactly where I said attacking wendy's crappy play so please give me a direct quote. If we're going on about the opportunistic point then it's the very situation and the factors that were involved.

That being said I don't think what I'm doing at all is in anyway hypocritical, I also thought wendy was brilliant but that's not really the point since that's an opinion that's we'll have to agree to disagree on.

What part of "I had stopped closely following Xite" are we still missing?

So when did you stop paying attention to Xite? Many of my posts towards him were before wendy joined the game.

I was "tunneling" Xite at post #222 and ended my conversation at him with on post #311.

Wendy joined the game at post #288, so surely you would have seen me posting against Xite then? Since you weren't paying attention to Xite were you also not paying attention to the people who posted responses to Xite? Your FoS against wendy is at #329, this was before wendy exploded. It seems strange that you would have missed me "tunneling" Xite then when you used tunneling as a reason for why I'm scum, still strange that you didn't bring it up before then and brought up again but did not show the past situations as supporting evidence. If you think I'm scum why wouldn't you take the time to make a good case with supporting evidence?

You, for one, for what I feel is a pretty poor case, but I will have to take a look elsewhere, considering I'm repeating myself almost every time I reply to you, it becomes rather draining.

I think my case is pretty awesome, as is my supporting evidence. Alright you think I'm scum now (It's starting to look like pure OMGUS, right?) so why would you look the other way? Don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

I'm saying that the things they did between point A and point H weren't closely followed, and not done so enough to get a solid read on them, ergo it would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch them SOLELY for their contributions leading up to point A.

Or are you somehow suggesting it would be great town play to only have half a case on someone and still lynch them for it? Because that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting I should have done at the moment.

You also neglected to say what the things they did at point A when you were at point H and at point H you said the things at point A didn't stick out to you.

The rest there's too many variables and it's situational to give you a good answer.

-------

lol majority of those were questions, lulz… if they were wrong why didn't you answer them and correct me? None of those are putting words in your mouth.

1. Question

2. Alright so what did you do then? I can't find any pro town reason a townie would't investigate the situation, what did happen then?

3. Sigh… did you or did you not forgot about your suspicions on Xite? If yes then can you see how anyone can think of you?

4. lol… that was never used against you, that was pointed out was pure speculation on a theory wendy could have thought up as as for why WENDY thought you were scum and questioned you, not I.

5. Question

6. Question

7. Are you denying that was an opportunistic situation for someone to make their vote? When I ask you further about the situation you just tell me you wanted to change your vote without any further reasons as to why about what other factors changed your choice.

8. That was what I understood from your post, is there a misunderstanding? Yes or no, if yes then why not tell me so we can drop it?

9. lol how this putting words in your mouth… you were angry about I mentioned a simple observation that wendy could have thought up as that leaded you to scum so I asked you to look from his perspective and give me some answers that doesn't. No, I'm not suggesting that if one of his flips town the other is scum, that's not the whole point of explaining wendy's actions lol… This might be hard for you to believe, but the wendy analysis was about wendy… not you or against you lol…

You want to know what putting words in your mouth is?

pretty much using hindsight to make his case on me in regards to saying how obv. town wendy is.

1. The case was never, never against you. I have no idea why you thought it was.

Go on, explain. When wendy was suspicious of me the ONLY things being pointed out was that I prevented an early gambit that... I had no idea about at all. So tell me, how is that scummy? Apparently it was my fault we didn't catch scum out with someone elses gambit, a gambit I felt was a joke... I'm sorry, but if that's the scrutiny that we're basing wendy's play on, I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

You wanted me to explain why WENDY was suspicious of you, we are also on the subject of wendy using scrutiny.

This is the definition of scrutiny

examination: the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes)

Part of showing you the reasons for why WENDY did things was to show HE WAS USING SCRUTINY. Are you telling me that looking at the early situation and asking questions about it was not scrutiny? I had posted this earlier before and you responded to it.

Do you honestly have no idea why Wendy was suspicious of you? Go back and read his posts, tell me if you still can't understand and I'll try to explain.

You wanted me to explain why WENDY was suspicious of you, and I did. Oddly enough you attacked me and got into some odd misunderstanding completely missing the point. Seriously how did you get confused and thought I was using this against you?

2. Never said wendy was obv town, please do not pull random adjectives.

So, we could add putting words into my mouth on the topic of how you're scummy but I'm willing to accept this as a misunderstanding, or do you still think I'm using my analysis of wendy against you when not only did I never say I was using it against you, I also said I wasn't using it against you.

[PranaDevil]

Alright first off, the evidence was all there in the thread havingfitz posted. Second I can't imagine any pro town player not investigating something someone claims to be as evidence for any another, and then wave that link citing it was proof that dalt lied.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I want you to stop thinking that everyone plays the game your way, and start thinking that everyone plays it differently, I've explained how things went down, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine, it's your perogative, but I'm not about to change my story because you don't like it. I'll tell the truth, you believe whatever you want.

Are you therefore suggesting that town players should never attack someone who is looking like obvious scum?

It's a null tell is what it is, at least at this stage of the game. If later in the game you can prove someone has been bouncing their vote around on any popular wagon, then hey, go for it... but after they apparently did it a single time, when they feel someone is scum? No... not really a stronge case there.

First off nooooooooo, never said that, give me a direct quote. Also let's say there's a vi in the game doing scummy or anti town things, scum can very easily justify their vote against them for a lynch, that doesn't make them not scum.

Just because scum could easily justify their vote on them, it does not mean everyone who votes for them must be scum. I again want to know why you aren't pressuring others on the wendy wagon. May I point out Nexus and Fitz joined after me, are their votes not "opportunistic" enough to warrant your attention? What about what Leech pointed out in regards to Llama and that he says he considered unvoting before deadline to force a no lynch? Is that not strange behaviour to you? This is how come you are tunnelling on me, you are ignoring everything else in the game completely.

You are refusing to acknowledge that wendy appeared scummy, if this is not true, tell me.

I can completely understand why you think wendy is scummy, and when wendy was in the game I disagreed without that. Now that's a clever way to avoid the question isn't it? Do you believe scum might possibly try to get wendy lynched?

My point isn't whether scum would try to get wendy lynched. Scum would try and get everyone but their partner lynched (and even then they'd be likely to hop on the wagon if they appeared to be going down), that much is just downright obvious. My point is that you are ignoring any reason why pro-town players would want wendy lynched for his actions.

Do you think it would look scummy to try and get wendy lynched?

Huh? Of course not, wendy was scummy as fuck. Otherwise you have 4 other people to get questioning as well.

Are you really suggesting that Xite was the easier lynch? It took a lot of effort on the part of the Xite wagon to make sure he was lynched and not wendy.

Ah, so would it not stand to reason that it would be scummy to push a lynch of Xite so strongly knowing he was town? This is why I take issue with your case on me. It's saying one thing and doing another. You say I'm scummy for how I felt wendy was scum. Yet you felt Xite was scum and pushed that case. Does that mean you are scum too?

So no, it doesn't vanish, I never suggested for once Xite's play vanished, but if I have a stronger read on wendy, and have stopped paying close attention to Xite's play, I will REFUSE to give a read on that player. It would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch a player I do not have a read on.

Hmmm, this quote suggests otherwise.

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to

Remember Prana before this you had said you were willing to lynch Xite.

Okay, read carefully here, because I'm getting annoyed at repeating myself over and over again because you refuse to actually understand what I'm saying.

Let's split the game into two periods.
A - B
B - C

A is the start of the game, B is the middle of day 1 roughly, and C is the end of day 1.

So, the A - B section:
I find Xite somewhat scummy, I state as much, I state that at that point I would be happy with a lynch on Xite. So in period A - B I would lynch Xite.

Then around point B wendy draws my attention so much that I can see no possible way he can be anything but scum (possibly like you're doing with me now... y'know, perhaps you should go looking elsewhere considering you have an entire two weeks to do so, and I would hope to god you're the next lynch if, for two whole weeks you solely tunnel on me). So...

B - C:
I let my attention be drawn mainly to wendy, thus I no longer am paying extra close attention to Xite (I'm reading what's being said, but going over wendy's crap more, like I say, not great town play, but at least I'm willing to admit that). Therefore I have no read for Xite for this section.

Now, while he may have been scummy in the A - B section, I REFUSE to lynch someone I don't have a read from sections A through C. That would be scummy as hell, and I'm not in the game of being scum when I'm not, y'know?

Thus my only conclusions are that you are doing one of the following:
1 - Suggesting I should have "actually" been willing to lynch Xite, and lied about not having a read on him for the B - C section. Which would be crappy play.

Or

2 - You have decided to take a quote from A - B, and attribute it for the entire A - C section, which is a massive misrep no matter which way you swing it, just as claiming I got less of a read from him with more information. It's not "more information" if I wasn't letting it sink in now is it? It's actually less information in my case. Yes, bad town play, but no, not scummy play, there's a difference.

Oh also I am suggesting that at the time you wanted to lynch Xite you didn't have a strong read, nothing more, nothing less.

And I've just said otherwise, repeatedly, in basically every post in this day phase, can you please understand the difference between what you are insinuating happened, and what I'm stating DID happen?

You spoke of the case against Xite and said you didn't look over it. That suggests that there was physical case, if not please clearly say what you mean so there are no more misunderstandings. I guess we both agree that this is a misunderstanding?

By case I simply mean what he posted. Once again, I do NOT store cases on players. I've said that three times at least now. I can hardly say it more clearly than I have done each time.

Wendy joined the game at post #288, so surely you would have seen me posting against Xite then? Since you weren't paying attention to Xite were you also not paying attention to the people who posted responses to Xite? Your FoS against wendy is at #329, this was before wendy exploded. It seems strange that you would have missed me "tunneling" Xite then when you used tunneling as a reason for why I'm scum, still strange that you didn't bring it up before then and brought up again but did not show the past situations as supporting evidence. If you think I'm scum why wouldn't you take the time to make a good case with supporting evidence?

Considering you were responding to Nexus, iau, Fitz, and others throughout it, it didn't feel like tunnelling, in fact even reading back over it, it doesn't feel like tunnelling, what you are doing here, focusing solely on me and NOBODY else, is tunnelling to a huge degree no matter what way you slice it.

I think my case is pretty awesome, as is my supporting evidence. Alright you think I'm scum now (It's starting to look like pure OMGUS, right?) so why would you look the other way? Don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

No, it's not looking like pure OMGUS, it's looking like "this guy's tunnelling like fuck, misrepping me, putting words in my mouth, and basically creating a case that isn't there", but why be honest about things when you can make up my thought process yourself?

And I'd like to ask you the same thing, don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

Oh right sorry, we're tunnelling on me today, and everyone else can be ignored.

lol majority of those were questions, lulz… if they were wrong why didn't you answer them and correct me? None of those are putting words in your mouth.

Sorry, but just because they were questions doesn't change what their intention was. If you wanted an honest answer you'd have worded them better than something which would give a straight yes/no response.

1. Question

No, more like a statement with a "right?" tagged on at the end. Which is exactly what it was.

2. Alright so what did you do then? I can't find any pro town reason a townie would't investigate the situation, what did happen then?

I have done, multiple times, read above, it's not my fault you refuse to accept what I'm saying in favour of tunnelling on me. Also, this is evidence of putting words in my mouth because you're stating I saw a chance to get Dalt lynched and went for it, which would be false because I didn't pursue it the second the actual evidence came to light (hey, you like meta, I don't, whoopie).

3. Sigh… did you or did you not forgot about your suspicions on Xite? If yes then can you see how anyone can think of you?

Read above.

4. lol… that was never used against you, that was pointed out was pure speculation on a theory wendy could have thought up as as for why WENDY thought you were scum and questioned you, not I.

If you weren't using it as part of your case, why did you make such a big deal out of it? If it is meaningless in your case on me, it is just fluff instead, is that not correct?

5. Question

Not so, again it's a statement in the form of a question.

6. Question

Again, statement in the form of a question.

7. Are you denying that was an opportunistic situation for someone to make their vote? When I ask you further about the situation you just tell me you wanted to change your vote without any further reasons as to why about what other factors changed your choice.

I felt wendy was scum, and had already given my reasons for it. Are we going to just play tennis with this point? Either you believe me or you don't, I don't give a toss right about now, I'm sick of re-hashing the same thing over and over again with new words. You still misrepped me with what you were saying whether you wish to admit it or not.

8. That was what I understood from your post, is there a misunderstanding? Yes or no, if yes then why not tell me so we can drop it?

I've pointed it out multiple times, and again further up on this post, read them.

9. lol how this putting words in your mouth… you were angry about I mentioned a simple observation that wendy could have thought up as that leaded you to scum so I asked you to look from his perspective and give me some answers that doesn't. No, I'm not suggesting that if one of his flips town the other is scum, that's not the whole point of explaining wendy's actions lol… This might be hard for you to believe, but the wendy analysis was about wendy… not you or against you lol…

I never said that last one was putting words in my mouth, I merely wanted to return to it because it caught my eye while skimming through. You'll notice I specified above each post whether it was putting words in my mouth or misrepping me. I stated neither on this one, but I like the sudden defensiveness from the start in replying to that.

Also, why were you giving an analysis about a dead player? We know they're town, what we don't know is whether they were correct in their suspicions or not, you are basically suggesting that wendy's opinions had to be correct and that's final, when it's laughable to think that.

You wanted me to explain why WENDY was suspicious of you, we are also on the subject of wendy using scrutiny.

This is the definition of scrutiny

examination: the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes)

Part of showing you the reasons for why WENDY did things was to show HE WAS USING SCRUTINY. Are you telling me that looking at the early situation and asking questions about it was not scrutiny? I had posted this earlier before and you responded to it.

No, you wanted to explain it, I merely said to "go on" you then posted it, and have since said it wasn't part of your case on me, thus admitting it was basically a big ball of fluff that you posted.

And no, I don't believe wendy was being scrutinous (I think that's a word) with what he was doing, I think he was being a terrible player and most of what was being posted got us nowhere and fast. It would also appear at least 4 other players felt that he was being scummy as well.

Now... I've responded to that... but I did go through an ISO on Lat either way (because I only felt it fair to do so being as I'm voting him). As I'd typed it up prior to seeing Lat had responded, I shall just C+P it under this:

--------------------

First, I want to look over Lat (until the end of Day 1, as I feel everything on Day 2 has been covered by myself during the back and forth). Obvious I know, but I either want to prove to myself he's not scum, and he's town going nuts in the wrong direction, or whether he's scummy as hell and needs lynching "like naow!"

I found a couple of things, but more things that show that he's being hypocritical in his case on me, rather than things that make him scum in my eyes. So I'm going to go with the fact he's town, but completely got himself tied up over something and is reluctant to see where I'm coming from for fear it makes him look scummy for pushing the case and backing off again.

Lat ISO #3

Votes Nexus putting him at 3 votes and the largest wagon. Considering his case on me suggests I was going after an "easy lynch" would it therefore be logical to conclude that he was doing the same by pushing someone he felt easy to lynch? If the answer is no then I expect him to back down from pursuing this point on my case because you can't have it both ways, either it's scummy to do it, which Lat did as well, or it's not scummy to do it.

Lat ISO #8

"Alright I understand, I assume you made all of your posts in a fast way?"

That bit?

Yes. Up until I made that comment, now I'm slowing down a bit.

Yes, that bit.

Now you've told me you're lying. You did not post every post in a fast "Think as I write way."

Lets look at your largest post (#111). There's a load of information there, you're telling me a person with a "short attention span" remembered all of that and typed up all of it without referencing to the thread even once? Even I had to read through the first few pags to get what was going on =/

Now my point is, now at this point you've finally slowed down why didn't you keep on posting in this way? Why are you rushing and as you yourself and you end up saying "'I'm not doing very well at explaining myself at all. (#174)"

Also your first list you believe it should be titled "This is where I stand" right? Does this mean that your second and third list is more of an "official" correct scum list you stand by?

Okay, I've brought this up because of the evidence that he is calling out people for "lying" just because he doesn't understand what they're saying, much like has been done with me.

Now, I take from that, that far from actually thinking someone's lying he is instead trying to justify pressing someone further by claiming they are lying when the honest fact is either he doesn't understand what they're saying, or that he is just looking to see if he can get a lynch going.

I'd also like to point something I seriously noticed come end of Day 1.

At this point you still haven't pointed out my flaws in the Dalt case that you have somehow brought up well after the fact to somehow beef up your case on me. Why is that? You're asking me why I didn't ISO Xite earlier (despite me stating I didn't have a chance), you have no reason to have not done that previously, so why do it now unless it's solely because you needed to try and make your case seem more solid than it actually was?

Surely attacking me for things you haven't done yourself is hypocritical?

So, conclusion is while he's acting somewhat scummy in my eyes in his attack on me, it's possible I'm looking at it that way "because" it's an attack on me and I know I'm town, so to that end I'm going to stop responding to Lat for a few days and look elsewhere, I'll try and get it done tonight, but no promises.

[iamausername]

Let's fill this game with 100 pages of two people arguing in circles, that'll help us find scum.

[Battousai]

Vote Count:

iamausername

-1- LoudmouthLee

PranaDevil

-1- Lateralus22

Leech

-1- iamausername

Lateralus22

-1- PranaDevil

Llamafluff

-1- Leech

Not Voting:

ConfidAnon, havingfitz, Llamafluff, Nexus, Nightwolf

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch (before Sep 8th)!

...

I've contacted a few people, but so far I haven't been able to fill the ConfidAnon spot. If anyone can find a replacement, it would be most appreciated.

[Lateralus22]

Holy crap I didn't realize how long this was until IAU pointed it out. Relax Prana we're almost finished with our one on one conversation.

The Dalt evidence case we are arguing about the moment the evidence is shown correct? If yes then we're done on this point since we can't move past arguing on a defition.

As for why I'm not pressuring everyone else it's because you're Prana. Seriously it's the way you did and and when you voted that stuck out as opportunistic to me, there were the others that I mentioned which played into that. Now no need to be deflective, I've read the other responses and felt I didn't need to respond to them. Now let me ask you why you didn't respond to what Leech said about you?

Right next on about getting wendy lynched. It's the time and place you did it and all the factors of the situation that come across as opportunistic, the others player who voted for wendy didn't come off as opportunistic to me.

Huh? Of course not, wendy was scummy as fuck. Otherwise you have 4 other people to get questioning as well.

I don't understand this. This would be a good reason for scum to convince town to lynch them.

Ah, so would it not stand to reason that it would be scummy to push a lynch of Xite so strongly knowing he was town? This is why I take issue with your case on me. It's saying one thing and doing another. You say I'm scummy for how I felt wendy was scum. Yet you felt Xite was scum and pushed that case. Does that mean you are scum too?

I think you're getting a bit off the point, even know I'm still confused as to why Xite did things, he's a sloppy town. We are now arguing on who is more scummy, wendy or Xite, and I doubt either of us can convince each other of our view. If this related to the opportunistic vote then it's the time and place you voted.

By case I simply mean what he posted. Once again, I do NOT store cases on players. I've said that three times at least now. I can hardly say it more clearly than I have done each time.

All you had to say was no this is a misunderstanding. I guess we are both dropping this now.

No, it's not looking like pure OMGUS, it's looking like "this guy's tunnelling like fuck, misrepping me, putting words in my mouth, and basically creating a case that isn't there", but why be honest about things when you can make up my thought process yourself?

And I'd like to ask you the same thing, don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

Oh right sorry, we're tunnelling on me today, and everyone else can be ignored.

Right, disagree with mis reping and putting words in your mouth. Yes, the case is there, that's kinda how you responded to it,

Yes I want to find scum and get them lynched, you're the first one and yeah I should be looking for the second one. This thread needs more activity.

Sorry, but just because they were questions doesn't change what their intention was. If you wanted an honest answer you'd have worded them better than something which would give a straight yes/no response.

Yes, yes it does change. I am going to assume you know that when someone asks a question they want to know something.

All the question responses are still questions.

Regarding the dal situation we're arguing on when the evidence was brought up.

Now about the giving an analysis about wendy it's because you wanted me to, or in the very least told me to. If you want to treat it as fluff go ahead, I consider it to be on topic. And I wasn't making a big deal about it, you kept on going on about how useless wendy was.

About opportunistic vote it's the situation and the factors you play in, if you don't want to be very specific about what happened and give me all the details then we don't have much to talk about.

Last point sorry, you said you were going to give a list of putting words in your mouth and that's what I thought it was.

I'm giving an analysis because you told me to, yes we don't know whether they were correct in their suspicions, I never once stated wendy was correct in his suspicions as to who was scum. And no I'm not suggesting wendy's opinion is fact, I'm suggesting what he was thinking and what the reasons for his actions were because you couldn't understand.

No, you wanted to explain it, I merely said to "go on" you then posted it, and have since said it wasn't part of your case on me, thus admitting it was basically a big ball of fluff that you posted.

Right, saying Go on is telling me to post it.

I stated "Do I really have to explain" and "This is going to waste a bit of my time" which implies that I didn't want to do it.

And no, I don't believe wendy was being scrutinous (I think that's a word) with what he was doing, I think he was being a terrible player and most of what was being posted got us nowhere and fast. It would also appear at least 4 other players felt that he was being scummy as well.

Then we will agree to disagree. The last bit is Argumentum ad numerum.

Lat ISO #3
Votes Nexus putting him at 3 votes and the largest wagon. Considering his case on me suggests I was going after an "easy lynch" would it therefore be logical to conclude that he was doing the same by pushing someone he felt easy to lynch? If the answer is no then I expect him to back down from pursuing this point on my case because you can't have it both ways, either it's scummy to do it, which Lat did as well, or it's not scummy to do it.

Nope, situations are very different. Still think Nexus is weird but some of his answers I'm satisfied with. Also regarding Nexus one very important thing is that I'm trying to get information out of him rather than lynch him on the spot.

At this point you still haven't pointed out my flaws in the Dalt case that you have somehow brought up well after the fact to somehow beef up your case on me. Why is that? You're asking me why I didn't ISO Xite earlier (despite me stating I didn't have a chance), you have no reason to have not done that previously, so why do it now unless it's solely because you needed to try and make your case seem more solid than it actually was?

After day 1 was over I read the thread and noticed it, I didn't notice it before or I would have brought it up. Not sure what you're saying about the Xite Iso.

Also I look forward to what you come up with.

tl;dr points to make sure we're getting past a few points, I agree with you that this is going on too long.

dalt - disagreement on a definition
Xite & Wendy - We both have opposing views on how pro town they are, chances are we won't be able to make the other agree
looking over a case - turns out to be a misunderstanding, nothing more to add
opportunistic vote - disagree on the situation and factors that play in
wendy analysis - one big misunderstanding
words in your mouth - completely disagree with that

Last thing, we're almost done.

Looking at the game you divided into multiple sections, I'm not thinking of it solely as divided at all. Xite is the same person throughout the game, and the statements that you made were not specific as to the very situations, you're simply saying you got distracted.

Right, we should be done now.

[LlamaFluff]

Never did. I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though.

Seriously, how is the player that caused the hammering vote going to claim to unvote to force a no lynch? That makes no sense at all. If he wanted to force a no-lynch he would have refrained from voting. Considering his vote literally caused the lynch, that statement is a bold faced lie.

Well lets look at the options for yesterday: xite lynch, TW lynch, no lynch. (order of preference no lynch/xite >> TW)

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur if a lynch did happen.

[LoudmouthLee]

Not quite here for a major post. Will do one tonight. Talk later.

[Leech]

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur

if a lynch did happen.

Why are you acting like I didn't understand you the first time? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

You hammered

. It's not "if a lynch did happen" when your vote caused the lynch. Your later statement that you were thinking about unvoting to force a no-lynch is completely invalid because

your vote was the hammer vote

. You could not have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when you voted, it caused the lynch to happen and any unvotes at that point would not have counted.

[LlamaFluff]

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur

if a lynch did happen.

Why are you acting like I didn't understand you the first time? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

You hammered

. It's not "if a lynch did happen" when your vote caused the lynch. Your later statement that you were thinking about unvoting to force a no-lynch is completely invalid because

your vote was the hammer vote

. You could not have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when you voted, it caused the lynch to happen and any unvotes at that point would not have counted.

Vote Count:

Xite91

-6- Lateralus22, Nightwolf, Leech, iamausername, tomorrow wendy, llamafluff

tomorrow wendy

-5- Xite91, LoudmouthLee, PranaDevil, havingfitz, Nexus

Llamafluff

-1- ConfidAnon

**seven to lynch**

Why are you acting like I have no idea what I was talking about? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

I put him at L-1

. It was a "if a lynch did happen" scenario as my vote did not cause the lynch. My statement about thinking about unvoting to force a no lynch is completely valid because

xite was at L-1

. I could have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when I voted, it was not a hammer, just a failsafe to prevent a TW lynch.

weeee....

Serious post tomorrow I hope. Had to get caught up on classwork today.

Funny enough I think that this makes Leech kinda town since I think that he would research his opinion better.

[havingfitz]

Caught up reading....not sure if I'm cuaght up in what is going on. D2 activites have me suspcious of IAM and Nexus. Call it gut on both with a little IIoA thrown in. Did IAM ever give a reason for voting Leech despite the fact both the people he had votes on D1 are still alive?

VOTE: iamausername

PS...the Lat Prana exchange was ridiculous. Never have I seen so much wall between two people. Could someone provide a synopsis since I lost focus about halfway through the second wall?

[Nexus]

I also don't know what to make of the Lat/Prana exchange. I'll give it a reread later and see if it actually makes any sense, or if they're just arguing over and over about nothing.

[iamausername]

I could have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when I voted, it was not a hammer, just a failsafe to prevent a TW lynch.

This part isn't true. Read the deadline rules.

[Nightwolf]

Sorry everyone. I've been having internet problems the past few days. College just started back up today for me, so that's how I'm posting now. I have an appointment set up tomorrow and I'm hoping they can fix whatever the problem is then, but until it is I'll be able to post from here between classes. Anyway I have to get to class now so I'll be back this afternoon when I have more time with an actual post.

[Nightwolf]

Ok I'm a bit more pressed for time than I thought I would be due to long lines at bookstore etc. but I do have time to follow up on a couple previous comments and add a few general statements.

I skipped most of the Lat/Prana wall-o-thon after about 2 posts each since I don't have the time to properly look into everything being argued there. However, from the bit I did read and sentences I glanced at, I can say that I don't really like half the argument from either side. Will form a more complete opinion on this once I have time to read it. Since I had mentioned I was "working on building my own case on Prana" before I'll summarize what I remember it containing (I believe they are all addressed in the Lat Prana debate already anyway so this is just for those wondering, I do not require Prana to repeat himself): The idea that Xite was a good lynch -> not having much of an opinion on Xite, Timing of votes (my notes are at home so I can't really specify what this meant until I see them again), and the possibility that Prana actually drew wendy into the two page worthless argument rather than the other way around.

As for my comment/survey about no-lynch: 1) It seems that I have all the responses I'm getting from that since almost everything has turned into Lat/Prana recently. I may have missed some while going through recent developments as well so I'll go back though and look at these responses another time.
2) I said I am more in favor of no lynching today than I thought I would be, and this is due to the unexpected event of wendy being NK'd. Follow-up explanation of my thoughts at the time: As far as I could tell, the situation was one of two things:
a) The scum were confused for whatever reason and ended up killing wendy when he could have likely been an easy mislynch today or later on, or
b) The scum have some sort of specific plan that killing wendy helps them to execute.
In the case of a), no lynching today means they have to make another kill while still somewhat confused, and in the case of b) no lynching could throw off their plan a bit since they were probably planning a later no lynch since that is what most had voiced approval of. If we were to no lynch today I would say it should be done right after CA's replacement came in and posted his initial thoughts, though I was making the assumption that CA would have been replaced by now (I do not believe it is too late for this just yet though if he is replaced soon). Otherwise I am also in favor of a relatively quick hammer on no lynch the day before mylo as I previosly alluded to.

New(er) thoughts: I am getting a bad vibe from LmL right now, I'll call it gut at the moment though I do believe I can offer a couple reasons when I have time.
The non-Lat/Prana posts on this page seem to contain some pretty bad fail, unsure what to make of them at this point since I don't have time to look back more closely at their related events.
My vote is very likely to end up on either Lat or Prana based on how I feel about the two of them after analyzing their exchange. Until then, VOTE: LmL.

Case(s) on at least one of LmL/Lat/Prana (depending on who I find scummier) to come tomorrow. I have to go.

[Lateralus22]

First off, I'm very disappointed in all you. I was hoping we would be able to get more pressure on Prana and get his partner to bus him but now he's gets to hide behind a oh the walls were long so I didn't read them disguise.

Second, this post is much shorter, it's a simply a few quotes that some of you may have missed which I think are important.

PS…the Lat Prana exchange was ridiculous. Never have I seen so much wall between two people. Could someone provide a synopsis since I lost focus about halfway through the second wall?

Spoiler: List of accusations

List of accusations

-Opportunistic voting
-Inconsistent views
-Lack of scum hunting
-Citing evidence against people when you don't read it
-Scum oversight

Spoiler: Citing evidence against people without reading it

First off you fitz will find this very interesting, this is citing evidence against people when you don't read it.

I'd be all for a Dalt lynch after that. I'm not one for an instant "Policy Lynch" as solely focusing on those will take us straight into brown trousers time. However I feel there's a huge difference between a general policy lynch of someone caught out lying, and someone who was using their lies to try and make town believe they were new and didn't really know how to play,

especially when there's evidence to prove otherwise.

It smells of trying to gain sympathy points and I don't like it.

This is not true. You made that post and cited that there was evidence against Dalt at post #143. Fitz posted his evidence against Dalt on post #99. How can you say "Oh there's evidence against Dalt" when you can't even be bothered to read it yourself. You saw fitz's post and figured that would get Dalt lynched, you didn't investigate further because that isn't required in your scum win condition.

Correct, I figured I didn't need to go check meta at that time (And I hate, with a passion, meta arguments anyway, people's gameplay can change between games and not just because they're town or scum. So meta arguments are null and void to me, the closest I'll come to "meta" would be "I've played with that guy a few times and know he's good at scum hunting").

It was only after it was proven that Dalt had been on here once before, and then had replaced out, that I began defending him.

But that's only if you "can be bothered to read it yourself" of course.

Spoiler: Opportunistic voting

Now let's go onto the opportunistic voting conversation, I think this point is very important.

1 - How? Show me my "opportunistic voting and lynching". I've not once been "opportunistic" in my voting, I voted wendy after only ONE vote had gone on him, one,

not 3 or 4 which would be opportunistic

, a single lone vote. I voted because I found wendy scummy. Done deal.

1. Take a look and see, and yes that vote was opportunistic. You are lying again. Your vote wasn't the second. It was the 4th. Post #355 Night / Xite are voting for Wendy. LmL then votes. Then you vote. YOU LIED.

How's about... when I said I was second on the wagon it was through not checking it and taking you saying LmL voted and then I did as stating I jumped on the wagon second. I wasn't about to go hunting to find out exactly what number on the wagon I was, and so I took what you said about it and used that. So no, not lying. What is it with you and effing lying?

Either way,

I don't really care where I was on the wagon

, all I care about is I was voting someone who was the scummiest player on day 1 in my eyes. Done deal.

In case you missed it before I never said Prana was second on the wagon, he misunderstand me on that. that being said, the bold points are very interesting.

Spoiler: Inconsistent views

Now about inconsistent views,

"the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy

that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is" post (#68)

So right now I'd be all for a Xite lynch. (#48)

That should be the major stuff.

[Lateralus22]

Edit: The quote not in the spoiler is by havingfitz not PranaDevil.

[LlamaFluff]

Vote PD

I am just going to lay out a quick case here, not going to get into a big post war in part because it gets unproductive after a few exchanged, and in part because I really am pressed for time right now. I knew my fall load was going to be bad, but this is REALLY bad.

I'd be all for a Dalt lynch after that. I'm not one for an instant "Policy Lynch" as solely focusing on those will take us straight into brown trousers time. However I feel there's a huge difference between a general policy lynch of someone caught out lying, and someone who was using their lies to try and make town believe they were new and didn't really know how to play, especially when there's evidence to prove otherwise. It smells of trying to gain sympathy points and I don't like it.

This was from very early on in the game, and looking back, especially with dalt slot being town. The way this is worded it says that dalt is almost on policy lynch level already given that he has outright lied, it says that he is using a form of AtE, it does everything but vote dalt. But there is not dalt vote, as CA disappearing was more interesting for him.

Saying that someone is scum though to the point where you would almost policy lynch them is doing everything but allowing you to vote them at any point you want to in the future.

So for now...

unvote; vote: Korashk

CA looks scummy to me a little, but Korashk is saying more by not saying anything at all after he was called out on that point, and I think he was hoping it would blow over by the time he returned. I'd like to see more pressure on Korashk.

Interesting again. PD moves off CA who has been getting better (remember CA was voted over dalt for lurking) onto korashk for... lurking! This completely bypasses the logic presented about dalt being "policy lynchable" scum, and jumps onto someone who is not contributing to the game, another lurker lynch, at the time that the Korashk wagon is suddenly becoming popular.

So basically, your arguments [fitz on dalt] don't hold water, and thus they are invalid, the fact you continue pushing them despite people pointing this out makes you scummy, and look desperate to try and convince people you are right.

This... confuses me.

Recently PD completely agreed with the case on dalt, and was completely willing to vote him on exactly what fitz had said. The only real difference between here and there was that people has started saying "that is a stupid suspicion" and then just like that, PD abandons the dalt-scum thoughts to attack the inital pusher of it.

~~~

All for now. I have to do a pre-lab for fluid mechanics and get started on steel design if I want any free time later this week.