#335 Road to Perdition - Finiretur (<- Over)

[Mackay]

Vote: Wintergreen

Dunbar is better, and I

like

my prose prolix!

[Mackay]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Mackay]

(That wasn't aimed at raj. Hi raj! Your being happy makes me happy. )

[Mackay]

Hi Primate, hi TB, hi everyone!

I would OMGUS Mackay, but the Catch-22 reference was too good, and Dunbar

is

better...

Dunbar > all. My favourite character from my favourite book. =)

As for the situation at hand:

So far we've seen three people all greeting one another conspicuously (you will notice my "You've got to be kidding" followed the second of the three), and two self-voters. I am pro-town, and have no restrictions/impositions upon my behaviour whatsoever. Therefore, I'm suspicious of all of them.

I hope to God the mutual greeters aren't masons - not because I've "exposed" them, but because their very first posts of the game exposed

themselves

necessarily - but the possibility makes me slightly less suspicious than the two self-voters. The first one made me uncomfortable (who the heck doesn't eliminate themselves from a list for random voting?), but the fact that there is a second has creeped me out. Why on earth would there be two people self-voting on the first page?! Additionally, the fact that Max used random.org as an excuse for his self-voting make me feel as though he's got something to hide. I'm going to go for c_d over him though, if only for the slight uncertainty that raj's assertion of "[Max] always does this" has given me. Besides, if it is a scum thing (I hope it isn't for the sake of the game's not being broken, but hey, it's day 1!), one's as good as the other.

unvote: wintergreen

FOS wintergreen, Primate, TB
Large FOS Max

vote: chaotic_diablo

[Mackay]

Confound you all and your confusing behaviour!

(un-FOSes the Mutual Greetings Newbie Friendship Club or whatever)

And yeah, I'm probably being paranoid here, but how did you know what Wintergreen's sig was before she had posted?

I saw it in another thread (not sure if it was sign-up or discussion elsewhere), but to be honest I'd've made a "prolix" reference upon hearing the name Wintergreen even without seeing the sig, and just hoped that that particular character was who they had in mind when taking on a pseudonym.

Also, go read Catch-22. (If you already have, go read it again.) (Not due to the missed reference, but because it's that friggin' good.)

[Mackay]

I don't think random voters are that suspicious. Max might have had some bad luck with random.org, which is, although mathematically not very likely, a plausible explanation.
Since Diablo does it every game, as I've been told, that isn't a reliable source of information either.
And although I find the people who FOS/vote them for this rather.. interesting, I suggest we leave the subject be and start some usefull discussion. I don't think this is contributing any more information than that it already has.

FOS: Raj, Thesp, Mackay, Wintergreen

for making such a big deal over such a minor thing.

While self-voting is idiotic, it should have been clear from my post that my vote on c_d was not for behaving idiotically, but for the strange fact that both he and Max were self-voters. Links between players make me think that they are evil. If chaotic_diablo was intending this to be some trap for people who were just looking for a scapegoat, I would recommend that next time he a) picks a behaviour which is unique - anything shared is suspicious! and b) picks a behaviour which is not suicidal. If he's town, he's

knowingly voting for a pro-town player

. So if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

That is why chaotic_diablo is being voted, not because the town is looking for some scapegoat.

Ooh! This is the perfect opportunity to use a phrase which I've noticed is way, way overused on scum: "Your defense of X is noted." X in this case being c_d. =)

You have brought new information to light, though, in that he apparently "does this every game". I didn't know this. Obviously, if I find somebody scummier I'll change my vote. It hasn't happened yet; you could be a possibility, except that it would only be through association to c_d anyway, and therefore I see no point in moving from one to the other... yet.

What

does

make me suspect you is the fact that you referred to the self-voting as "random voting". It seems to me that you are trying to downplay how damaging these kind of votes can be. Then again, it could also be a scum player who is coming to the defense of people they know to be pro-town, to make themselves appear innocent later on.

Hm. I changed my mind about moving my vote.

unvote: chaotic_diablo, vote: TB

[Mackay]

While self-voting is idiotic, it should have been clear from my post that my vote on c_d was not for behaving idiotically, but for the strange fact that both he and Max were self-voters. Links between players make me think that they are evil.

Max said he coincidentally had himself on random.org and has drawn himself for the past three games or something. I voted because I always do so. Your link is just a false assumption between two bizarre actions that happen independently from each other.

I had already started to realise that, given the "does it in every game". However, given the fact that two of you did it, and there were three people sharing mutual greetings at that point, I was beginning to worry about associations between players. I do not think I was unjustified in doing so.

If chaotic_diablo was intending this to be some trap for people who were just looking for a scapegoat, I would recommend that next time he a) picks a behaviour which is unique - anything shared is suspicious! and b) picks a behaviour which is not suicidal. If he's town, he's knowingly voting for a pro-town player. So if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

If I knowingly vote for a protown player, myself, then it only proves that I know what I'm doing. Players who knowingly vote for a person of unknown allegiance, don't. However, can you really reflect and base a person's judgement and opinion just by one vote? No, so your making a premature assumption.

What nonsense. Yes, you "know what you're doing" - if you're town you're

voting for a player you know to be pro-town!

As town, how is doing this more justifiable than voting for somebody else, who at least has a

chance

of being mafia?

I have made no assumptions, premature or otherwise. I have stated that if you are pro-town, your behaviour is anti-town. Except for a very few, extremely rare cases,

voting for a player you know to be pro-town is anti-town

.

I have neither tried to deduce your motives, judgments, nor opinions. I have simply stated that it is a ridiculous thing to do, either as town or scum. You are trying to make it look as though I am drawing conclusions about you from this behaviour, where I have tried to do no such thing. Please desist.

You have brought new information to light, though, in that he apparently "does this every game". I didn't know this. Obviously, if I find somebody scummier I'll change my vote. It hasn't happened yet; you could be a possibility, except that it would only be through association to c_d anyway, and therefore I see no point in moving from one to the other... yet

If you read, coron posted that piece of information quite a while ago.

My bad. Contrary to your belief, I do in fact read, but I may well have conflated Coron's "c_d does this every game" with the "Max does this every game" posted by raj. I am not sure what significance this has, however, other than to attempt to make me look bad.

I have moved on, c_d. You will notice that I am no longer voting for you. Could you explain to me why you choose to focus on me?

[Mackay]

I can play the copy-paste game too!

That's exactly my point. If you were voting for him for behaving idiotically, your vote wouldn't be linked so directly to the fact that he self-voted. Because you think self-voters are suspicious, I find you suspicious.

I was voting him for a perceived correlation between his behaviour and Max's, not because he self-voted.

Links between players make me think that they are evil.

That is the most stupid thought I've heared in a long time (no offense meant). If you really think that's true, you should have also FoS'ed the people who greeted eachother (yes, that included me) and of course yourself and Wintergreen, with the Dunbar-link. In a game like this, many, many links exists between people, and only one of those links is that of mafiosi. So unless you're able of telling which one that is, links between players mean nothing.

I

did

FOS the players who greeted each other.

I am obviously not going to include links which involve me, as I know I'm pro-town.

That is the most stupid argument I've heard in a long time - no offense meant, of course. Isolating connections helps little on day 1, as there is no solid knowledge of anybody's alignment amongst the town. But when people start dying, it turns up some of the best kinds of information. You are correct in that there are many links between players in any given game. But once a scum turns up dead, that isolates a few of them for closer inspection. How do

you

find mafia? Follow-the-cop?

(random-)Selfvoting is nowhere even near suicidal. Apart from a certain exception (you), I don't think anybody is willing to lynch somebody on day 1 because he selfvoted (no matter whether someone else has already selfvoted before him or not).
Therefore, in the end the discussion would have let nowhere, and that behavious wouldn't be suicidal.

You vote for people in order to kill them. Therefore, a vote for yourself is contributing to your own death. i.e. "suicidal". And you have again showed that you aren't even reading my posts by mistaking the reasoning behind my vote for c_d. Again, it was a perceived connection which has since been revised in my mind. I'm voting for

you

, remember? For some reason you're making this out as though I'm out to get c_d. I thought he was stupid. Max, too. Now that I am unsure about a connection, I've written it off as two people being stupid, and have voted someone else. Why are the both of you persistently defending against accusations I didn't make?

You seem to forget that those votes were cast in a stage of the game where votes have even less meaning than a comment like "Hello all, I'm scum, how do you do?".
This is a phase in which we should be having a discussion which

gives us usefull information

, and nothing else.

You said yourself that my posts are providing information. Do you not think that encouraging discussion

does

give us useful information? My vote was not a baseless vote without explanation, nor was it a bandwagon vote. Again I say

read my posts.

My primary intent is not to defend c_d, but to prevent the town from having a pointless discussion that leads nowhere.

But... but... you just said discussion gives information. What are you afraid

this

particular discussion will reveal?

First you say c_d is an idiot (or at least behaving like one),

Yes.

evil,

No. I said that connections between players make me fear they are evil. You'll see I expressed the same fear about you greeter types.

suspicious

Yes.

and dangerous to the town,

Only if he's pro-town, in which case he's voting a player he knows to be pro-town, which is - oh, this is gonna blow your mind - ANTI-TOWN, Einstein.

then you start backpeddling so it makes it easier for you to change your vote.

Backpeddling? Oh,

backpedaling

. Wait, backpedaling? When have I done anything of the sort? The only thing that changed my vote was

your

behaviour. Show me where I've condoned c_d's behaviour IN THE SLIGHTEST, and I'll retract my opinion that you're not reading my posts. In the slightest.

Although I do think selfvotes aren't damaging, I'm not trying to downplay them. As you can see by Max' post, his vote was random, and although c_d's wasn't, it still can be counted as a random vote, as it has the same value.
So now I am a scum player coming to the defense of townies? You are contradicting yourself hugely within one post. Do you think c_d is a townie or not?

I can see where the misunderstanding was here. I don't know whether c_d is a townie or not. However, the strength of your defence of him I find suspicious either way. As far as I know, you have no reason to believe that he is pro-town. (No, not the defence itself, it's not some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing, it was the vehemence with which it was put forward.)

You could very well be a scum player making some worthless contributions based on nothing to make themselves appear protown. [/sarcasm]

I will need some clarification here.

Was the sarcasm that you don't believe that my posting is actually worthless?

Was the sarcasm that you don't believe I am scum?

Or was the sarcasm your being an ass who doesn't know the correct definition of "sarcasm"?

Forgive the abrasiveness of that last bit, I'm a little drunk, and I don't take particularly kindly to what I have found to be a highly effective method of catching scum being called "stupid".

I do. You are being paranoid, and although that can be a good thing, it's beginning to influence your judgement. If what you say was true, that would mean there would be at least 5 mafia, which is obviously untrue.

Yes, I am paranoid. Clinically speaking, I mean. I find it works for me, mafia-wise. =)

Also, I notice you've read my post now... or you've just contradicted yourself. First off you say if I'm after associations I should have FOSed the mutual greeters, and now you're

including the same FOSes, whose existence you ignored in the previous post, in your interpretation

?

Also, the theory itself is fallacious. I made it quite clear that the mutual greeters and the self-voters were two separate groups of suspicions. I was in no way saying, or even

implying

that they were in anything together. I am beginning to think that you have wilfully misinterpreted me, and that you are interpreting my posts differently in each post to suit whatever given shabby argument you're trying to make at the time, and becoming convinced that my vote is in the right place.

It isn't, but neither is voting for somebody else.

It isn't more justifiable than voting for someone else, but

neither is voting for somebody else?

What?

As you very well know, all random voters don't vote because they think they vote for scum, they vote to trigger discussion.

And what kind of reaction are you expecting from yourself, when you vote for yourself? What kind of reaction from others do you expect other than "you're an idiot" and "you're not being helpful"?

A selfvote doesn't differ in this, only you fail to see this.

Explain to me how a self-vote is in any way helpful, and I will concede this. Pro-towners are just as likely to jump upon a self-voter as scum, as they're damaging either way.

You seem to be able to draw conclusions from selfvotes which are based on nothing, and that is something that concerns me.

I haven't drawn any conclusions!

Do you see me saying "c_d is scum"? For the friggin' last time, all I said was that the fact that

two

people did it, while the initial impression was that of behavioural restrictions, was suspicious. What concerned me was the fact that at the time, there were so many coincidental behaviours among the town, that I wanted to pick up on them - and self-voting is scummier! I voted him, AGAIN, for the correlation with Max' behaviour, not for the self-vote in and of itself.

Someone's backpeddling over here.

Oh, for crying out loud. Point out for me where I've backed down one step where it was not logically warranted, or stop making moronic accusations which make you feel like you're making a good argument.

Of course you haven't been deducing his motives, he hasn't got one, that's the whole idea behind a random vote.

Thankyou for basically repeating what I said. But the vote was not random, remember? He "does it every game". You are still writing off the vote as less than what it is.

By stating it's a ridicilous thing to do (selfvoting) for both scum and town, you do admit that there is no information to gain from the discussion, hence proving that I was right

Wrong. There is no

benefit

to be gained from the

act of self-voting

. On the other hand, I'm finding the ensuing discussion very telling indeed.

Also, if you were drawing no conclusions from his behaviour, what made you think he was scum?

The fact that he and Max self-voted, at the same time as people were conspicuously greeting one another in public. I was beginning to feel that certain types of players had certain types of restrictions upon their behaviour. That's since been proven wrong, and I've moved my vote onto a more scummy candidate. At the time I did not believe it to be a suspicion drawn from his behaviour, but from his voting pattern. And it was far from a "conclusion", it was a day 1 vote.

Although I would like to see c_d answer this question as well, I'd like to answer it for him. It's because you haven't stopped making silly accusations.

I didn't accuse him of anything except acting stupidly.

As for your latter post:

EBWOP, sorry, I just realised I forgot something
I'm very tempted to vote for Mackay, but the only thing that stops me is that she has made some good contributions to the discussion (good in the way that it gives us a lot of information, and a good discussion). That's why I keep my vote on Ibaesha, but I'll change it to Mackay as soon as Ibaesha has replied with a reasonable explanation.
My current scumlist consists of:
1. Ibaesha, closely followed by
2. Mackay

I hope my analyses gives you something to think about

You think I've made good contributions? After saying in your previous post that my contributions are worthless?

Highest on your suspicion list are the two people with the most suspicion on you? HOW PERCEPTIVE.

Thankyou, thankyou. I've been Drunken Angry Ranting Mackay, and I'll be here all night. Well, I might pass out in my chair. But that's unlikely, seeing as I seem to still be able to type coherently. Also, raj has beautiful eyes. (OMG MAKING CONNECTIONS. I tend to say that when I'm drunk. )

[Mackay]

Oh wow, that was

long

.

Um, sorry?

*hic*?

[Mackay]

But I think I see something fascinating here...it appears like TB knows the people arguing to be townies.

I was hoping to get him to state it more explicitly by asking for elaboration upon his "sarcasm" tag. =)

I apologise for the scumtacularity, but I genuinely do not see why it was me who was the primary focus of attention from c_d. And TB afterward, for that matter.

[Mackay]

By the way, I don't find the discussion useless at all, it's already shown me enough inconsistencies within TB's arguing to make me confident in my vote for him, and people's reactions will be interesting.

What I did find amusing was that he went on for so long on a discussion *he* claimed was useless.

[Mackay]

(More sober now, btw. Will still be here most of the night, most likely.)
(Sorry for the triple post.)

[Mackay]

I also FOSed four earlier - though admittedly it was not in a manner which seemed to try and halt the current discussion, which is what it seems Ibaesha's problem with TB was.

Also, it was about 1:45 when you made the earlier post, raj - 3:15am now.

I'd FOS raj for blatantly trying to win over the ladies with flattery, but I don't want him to stop.

[Mackay]

Blatantly win over the men with flattery?

[Mackay]

If the reason I had to vote you was particularly "good", it'd still be there.

Um, I've been trying to type a response to your comment about my assumption, but it's nothing I haven't already said. From my point of view, you could be scum, as could anyone. And if you're not (this applies to Max too), then the fact that you are voting for someone you know to be pro-town, even as a first vote on day 1, makes you seem to be less of a bad lynch than the townies who are trying to get reactions out of other people through their vote. In my opinion, it's about on the same level as a mason voting for his mason buddy. In all but a few cases, not cool.

However, I don't want you to think of that as an attack. I am more concerned with TB. As I said, I'm still unsure of your scum/town status, and maybe it's even your way of inciting discussion, though I can't say I like it. TB, on the other hand, has phrased a few things in such a way that it appears he holds the assumption of innocence in other people, which indicates to me that he

knows

certain people are innocent, because he has inside knowledge of who is guilty. His glaring inconsistencies and misinterpretations while arguing me I found very suspicious also, though there is a chance that that is unintentional.

Edit before posting: I don't think you're an idiot. I think that voting for yourself is idiotic behaviour in 99% of situations. My apologies for being abusive (to TB as well), I tend to get very worked up about mafia.

[Mackay]

Quick look at the player list: connor and Masterchief are two players who haven't posted.

Presumably they sent their confirmations, and therefore know the game is going on. Get yer butt in here, lurkers!

[Mackay]

I had vowed to myself when I made that last mammoth post, that my next response to TB would not be in the "quote, copy-paste, reply" format. But given the fragmentary nature of his reply, I fear I may have no choice.

It's 11pm here, and I haven't decided yet whether I'll respond tonight or later tomorrow when I'm done with work. I'll probably be exhausted when I get home (an 8am shift for a night owl is not so good) so I'll probably try now, but don't be too disappointed if I don't get around to writing that novel till Sunday (my time, Saturday for most of you).

I'm going to re-read the post and see if I'm feeling particularly inspired to respond. What I did notice was that he did make some valid statements against me, but that most of these were based in either misinterpretations or semantics. I'll see whether that's correct or not, I only skimmed rather superficially.

[Mackay]

I was voting him for a perceived correlation between his behaviour and Max's, not because he self-voted.

And why was there a link between them? Because he selfvoted. But even if this isn't about selfvoting, why did you defend the idea that selfvoting is a bad play:

If he's town, he's knowingly voting for a pro-town player. So if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

There was a link between them because he self-voted, yes, as did Max. Just because the vote was based on the fact that they both did it and not the votes themselves, does not mean that I approve of the votes, as should have been made

abundantly

clear by now.

I did FOS the players who greeted each other.

And you unFoSed them in your first post after that. I think that pretty much prooves you aren't convinced by your own believes.

Uh. That's because I was told the three of you had been in that game together. There was an innocent explanation for the link, and therefore it was no longer suspicious. All it proves is that I listen to reason. You will notice that I will concede that in your posts which is reasonable, I simply find that there is little of reason within your posts to concede.

How do you find mafia? Follow-the-cop?

Perhaps you should be thinking about the difference between a link and a relation. The "link" you have been talking about is something they have in common. A relation however is based on the way they have acted towards another person. That are the kind of things that are helpful. Trying to link unrelated actions just because they are the same is pointless.

a) How does this relate to the excerpt of my post you quoted there?
b) This is the second time you have used semantics to try and make a dubious point.
I agree that it is behaviours toward other players which is most telling. However, when I made my original post of suspicions, the game was still less than 30 posts long. There were conspicuous mutual greetings, and incongrous self-votings going on. As someone not privy to any of this behaviour, I found it unsettling. The greetings were explained, and I removed my suspicion. chaotic_diablo and Max were explained, and I removed my vote, but not my low opinion of their behaviour. Is that explanation sufficiently clear?

You vote for people in order to kill them.

That's the core of the discussion now isn't it? Something which you've chosen to ignore from my last post, so here i'll state it again: random votes don't have a meaning. They simply serve to start a discussion. Your vote for Wintergreen, was that meant to kill her?

Here you have a point. I will generally place one random vote at the beginning of a game before I start vote-hopping (I'm notorious for this on day 1, I get all ranty and the ensuing controversy causes me to hop from person to person as increasingly suspicious candidates show themselves). The vote on Wintergreen was random, but the key point is that

she could be mafia

. I am not mafia, so I'm not going to vote for myself no matter what. And I don't think doing so is a sign that I "know what I'm doing".

For some reason you're making this out as though I'm out to get c_d. I thought he was stupid.

You voted for him. According to you, people vote for others to kill them. Now logically, you were trying to kill him. So yes, I think you were out to get him.

I would not have been displeased with a c_d lynch. You have seen why I think his behaviour was damaging, and I feared a connection between himself and Max. The connection was explained and I removed my vote, while still stating that I feel his behaviour was wrong. Maybe this is a non-native English misunderstanding, when I say "out to get someone", I feel it is a rather more

persistent

behaviour than a single and early vote.

Perhaps I should remind you of this quote from you:

but hey, it's day 1!, one's as good as the other.

Are you therefore saying that you don't care who you kill?

See, this is the kind of thing which makes you look suspicious. You have taken my words out of context in the extreme. That quote, I believe, referred specifically and only to chaotic_diablo and Max. And within that same post, I stated that I feared they were connected. I stated that lynching one of chaotic_diablo and Max was as good as lynching the other, which was obvious at that point in time, because they were exhibiting the same behaviour. It became un-obvious, and I retracted it. Please explain how, and more importantly,

why

you decided to draw from this that I "don't care who (I) kill".

Now that I am unsure about a connection

Oh, the link is still there, it's just still as meaningless as it was when it was created. It's just that you finally start to realise that.

So I ought to disregard all perceived connections? I realised the "connection" was meaningless the moment it was pointed out to me, and discarded it. It's you who is dragging it up again, despite your declarations that we should be moving the discussion along.

The selfvoting thing is at the base of the relation between them. When I pointed out that I don't found that suspicious, you immediately came up with reasons why it was (idiotic, dangerous to town, etc). Oh, and what's perhaps more important, you voted for me because of the disagreement about selfvotes.

Right, and wrong.

Yes, I disagreed with you about the self-voting being suspicious. I can be suspicious about something without making it the basis of my vote. I can tell you've been reading my posts, because you've mentioned my mistaken perception of a connection many times now. Please do not disregard facts when it suits your rhetoric.

Wrong, I did not vote you for the disagreement about self-voting. I disagreed with you due to the strength of your defense of chaotic_diablo. I have kept it there because you are not arguing in an honest fashion, and therefore I am forced to believe you are attempting to be manipulative. Also, the assumption within your post that I was innocent (or refusal to acknowledge that you do

not

understand the concept of sarcasm; you choose) helped out too.

Your posts in this new discussion are providing information, that is what I said. Only encouraging the right discussion gives us usefull information, which is exactly what I've said. You make it sound like you've just came up with a brilliant idea, and that I have been against it the whole time, while it was my idea in the first place

I think you misunderstood me here. I was pointing out that you were in one breath telling me that my posts are pointless, telling us the current discussion was pointless, and yet telling us how important discussion was and that we needed to do it.

I also think I cannot possibly be the only one laughing at you for "it was my idea in the first place", like you're the first person ever to come up with the brilliant theory that discussion is good for the town.

Look at what I've posted so far. Do I seem averse to discussion?

Oh did I now? I said we

should be having

a discussion which gives us usefull information. I also said that the current discussion wasn't given us any information. As Ibaesha said, I don't think a discussion about math is giving us any information about this game, but if you insist I'll talk about math with you, I don't mind
So please, stop twisting my words to make me look bad, and respond to the points I've made, most of which you have been avoiding.

This discussion is giving me some

incredibly

useful information.

Also, please tell me these brilliant points of yours which I have been ignoring. I'll gladly address them. In neither of my quote-and-reply posts have I even removed anything from the content of what you said (unlike a certain selective quoter who's already been busted taking one thing out of context), so if I've failed to address something individually, I'd love to amend that promptly.

If you weren't that convinced, why did you wanted to kill c_d?

Because it was the best I had at the time. I found better. You're not going to get an apology from me for consistently pursuing what I believe to be the best lynch at the time, nor for moving my vote elsewhere when a better option arrives. Which is exactly what happened.

Only if he's pro-town, in which case he's voting a player he knows to be pro-town, which is - oh, this is gonna blow your mind - ANTI-TOWN, Einstein.

So in other words, he is dangerous to the town? Oh dear, it looks like i'm reading my own quote, de ja vu (sorry, can't be bothered to do the accents).

Um, zing?
In my opinion, the behaviour is dangerous to the town. c_d himself, I'm not so sure.

If you want to play the "search-eachothers-posts-for-spelling/grammar-errors" game, then tell me, because I think there's plenty to find in your posts as well. Just keep in mind that English is not my first language, so I don't think that spellingerror will be my last. You'll just have to live with that, but personally I think it's very lame to use something like that, although it does show that you are getting desperate.

Actually, I did it out of malice because you called my arguments idiotic. At the risk of sounding arrogant, though, good luck finding any spelling errors (with the possible exception of that drunken post).

About the

backpedaling

:

You have brought new information to light, though, in that he apparently "does this every game". I didn't know this. Obviously, if I find somebody scummier I'll change my vote. It hasn't happened yet; you could be a possibility, except that it would only be through association to c_d anyway, and therefore I see no point in moving from one to the other... yet.

How's this one? First you start saying that one of your arguments is rubbish, by saying you "didn't knew this", then you start talking about the circumstances that would make you change your vote, and surprisingly, you do so in the alinea after that.

So.... saying I'll change my vote if I find someone scummier, then talking for a while and coming to the realisation that someone

is

scummier, and then voting for that person, is backpedaling? Seems a fairly linear progression to me. Besides which, even if one considers it a retraction, I did say "when it wasn't logically warranted". Your scumminess + c_d's always voting himself = logical to unvote c_d, vote scummier person.

You voted for him, which means you were pretty sure that he was scum.

Not even "pretty sure", but he was scummier than anybody else at that point.

I don't know if he's a townie or not, but contrary to you,

I

don't want to lynch a townie, that's why I defended him, because I believe he's a townie, just like you believed he was scum.
I indeed don't have any reason to believe he's pro-town, but I have even less reason to lynch him and find out he was a townie after all.

If you think "wanting to lynch a townie" is evil, then how can you defend any pro-town player who puts a vote on themselves?

Sure, the whole sentence was sarcastic, a mere parody on your own ridiculous accusation on me.

No, I mean, explain the sarcasm. I even made it multiple choice. The whole thing was sarcastic? Meaning you don't think I'm scum and don't think my contributions are worthless?

Good, then you already know that I'm after you, saves me some explaining.

Trust me, I'm peeing in my pants.

Hey! That was SARCASM!

I didn't ingnored them, but they weren't serious accusations, since you unFoSed right away.

Then why did you say

If you really think that's true,

you should have also FoS'ed the people who greeted eachother (yes, that included me)

and of course yourself and Wintergreen, with the Dunbar-link.

Doesn't sound like you were simply writing it off as unimportant to me.

You were the one that stated that all people who are linked are probably evil. Since you FoS'ed them all, you were suspicious of all of them to be mafia. If they are all mafia, they are together in something. So you actually were implying that they had something to do with eachother, you just refuse to see it.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph I don't know where to begin.

I said, when I see links between people, I get scared that they are evil. I did not even say that they are "probably evil", just that it makes me uneasy.

I was indeed suspicious of them. But there were two separate groups of suspicions. An FOS does not mean "I believe you are mafia", it means "I find you suspicious".

Being suspicious that you, Wintergreen, and Primate are connected, and being suspicious that Max and c_d are connected, does not mean I am quite paranoid enough to believe that the two separate "connections" are connected to

one another

.

Also,

confirm vote.

We started in day; why are you so sure there is only one mafia group?

Selfvoting isn't more justifiable than voting for someone else, but neither is voting for sombody else more justifiable than selfvoting.
This must be like the fifth time this is coming up, there isn't a difference between selfvoting and voting for somebody else. Clear now?

So because you say it, it's true? Offer some reasoning, or something.

Is there a difference between voting for a random townie and voting for your mason buddy? Yes. Why? Because you know your mason buddy is innocent, so it would be stupid to vote for him. Because you should be voting for people who, at the very least, you don't

know

are innocent.

Any discussion in which people express their opinions on matters, thereby giving information is helpful, and a selfvote is more likely to start a discussion than any other random vote, this whole game is a nice example of that.

But you were saying this discussion isn't worthwhile just before! Stop contradicting yourself! You're hurting my head!

You are correct that it inspires discussion. I think I am correct in that it hasn't inspired

much

discussion other than some people saying it's damaging and others saying it isn't. You and I in particular have gone into the details of why, but other than that, any discussion c_d has inspired has been more tangential - for example, your overenthusiastic defence of him, and the apparently nonexistent link with Max.

And that's the seventh time. read my comment on your previous quote, I don't feel like copying it here

I read it. I'd like to see you back it up, or show how it was in any way substantial.

"Selfvoting is idiotic", "pick a behavious that isn't suicidal" or "so if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town"
I think that pretty much says c_d is scum. He selfvoted, so he's behaving idiotic, and if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

Dangerous or silly need not necessarily be anti-town. I wish you'd stop accusing me of making accusations based on an argument we've been having that you've been pushing (at least with regard to the c_d issue). You are basically asking me to explain repeatedly why I voted for him earlier, and then using that to accuse me of trying to throw suspicion on him.

And again, you voted for me (which is believe is still your current vote) for the disagreement over the selfvoting.

Again, you're wrong. I'm voting you for the strength of your defence, not its content.

Perhaps you should read your own quote when you're scanning my post for things you actually do have an answer to.

This is just laughable. As I said above, I have responded to each of your posts in full, and if I've missed something, feel free to point it out so I can address it again. This is hypocrisy at its finest. At least don't take out-of-context quotes from me to support your arguments if you're going to make ridiculous and baseless accusations of this kind.

I have neither tried to deduce your motives, judgments, nor opinions. I have simply stated that it is a ridiculous thing to do, either as town or scum. You are trying to make it look as though I am drawing conclusions about you from this behaviour, where I have tried to do no such thing. Please desist.

That is what I call backpedaling.

I call it calling you on your behaviour.

stop making moronic accusations which make you feel like you're making a good argument.

Pot you say? Ah, hello, I'm Kettle.

...I feel as though I'm beating a dead horse here. Anybody reading this will know my reaction.

If that's the problem than I have a confession to make. My vote wasn't random either, I just chose connor from the list for no particular reason. Now what?

I find it is generally a good idea, when writing analogies, to ensure that they match the situation for which they were chosen.

But so that I am not accused of dodging anything, choosing a name at random from a list is random. Voting yourself in every game, with clear intent of doing so (as opposed to Max' use of random.org), is not random. Feel free to ask if this is not clear to you in some way.

Oh dear, it almost looks like selfvoting might actually have a purpose, and is good to trigger discussion, providing information for the town. I'm so sorry, that is of course what you have said all along. Oh no, that was me..

Right, the town discussing things was your idea, I forgot.

Again, out of context. This was responding to your saying that the current discussion was pointless, and I responded to the contrary because I am finding this discussion just full of helpful information.

I don't understand where you got the idea that I am somehow averse to discussion. Have I tried to shut down any discussion anywhere? Have I even, say, written any discussion off as not being worth our time?

And how is that not a part of his behaviour?

My apologies, I was differentiating between general behaviour toward other players, and voting patterns. But you are correct, it can just as easily be construed as a part of behaviour in general.

You forget the dangerous to the town thingy, and the accusation of me being scum because I don't agree with you.

I have addressed twice within this post my reason for voting you, and did so earlier also.

You are correct about the "dangerous to the town" comments. My apologies.

Your contributions show that you at least have made some effort in this game, they don't valuate the quality of those contributions.

Awww, shucks.

And why is that again? Because their arguments are based on nothing.
But don't worry, i've grown less suspicious about Ibaesha, so I'll change my vote at the end of my post (guess who's going to get it?).

Oh damn, and I just changed my pants.

I appreciate the effort to downplay my and Ibaesha's arguments. Really I do. But if you truly consider them nothing, then you're going to a whole lot of effort for an argument against something which doesn't exist.


One last thing:

I don't think this discussion is useless at all, you are putting words in my mouth, once again.

Oh did I now? I said we

should be having

a discussion which gives us usefull information. I also said that the current discussion wasn't given us any information. As Ibaesha said, I don't think a discussion about math is giving us any information about this game, but if you insist I'll talk about math with you, I don't mind
So please, stop twisting my words to make me look bad, and respond to the points I've made, most of which you have been avoiding.

These were made in the same post, so I'm kinda wondering which way I'm supposed to be twisting your words. It seems like you're doing it well enough on your own...

No, wait, that was second-last. This can be the last:

TB, I appreciate your effort. But I am genuinely baffled. Rather than trying to address my entire post point-by-point - though feel free to do that too, if you want - could you simply point out these points of yours which I seem to have ignored? I really would like to address them.

[Mackay]

I hate the quote-and-reply game

I talk enough as it is

without

responding to things point-by-point.

Sorry again, all.

[Mackay]

Please lynch TB to make the bad men stop.

I'm doin' all I can.

I fear that you will be forced to stab me in the face at some point, though my posts generally do not reach the epic scale of the above.

If you believe that the scum are simply hiding while the argument goes on, should you not be voting for somebody not involved in the argument? (Not that I in any way, shape, or form endorse removing a vote from TB, but I'm interested in what you have to say.)

[Mackay]

Sorry people I forgot about this game too and like thesp, i too am getting annoyed with all of these long posts.

No, not "like Thesp". Not "getting" annoyed. You showed up late and now you're complaining because you have to read long posts. You don't have the right to be annoyed about something you didn't bother showing up to prevent.

Just sayin'.

Welcome to the game, connor, Masterchief. I'm not usually so mean. There is an advantage to this, a slightly 'outside' perspective might be useful. As you've both had to read in one go rather than being slowly sucked into the vortex of admittedly very tedious long posts (heck,

writing

them was boring), does anything stand out to the two of you in particular? Connor, what's the reasoning for your Max vote?

[Mackay]

Masterchief, in response to your question about TB, I might as well explain why I find him suspicious, as I'm not sure he knows himself, what with it being lost in a whole lot of blah blah blah on my part. I'm a sucker for having the last word.

It began with a disagreement over self-voting, which is where I think his confusion stems. First of he FOSed four people for "making such a big deal" out of the self-voters. That didn't particularly stand out to me.

The first thing which caught my attention was what he admits to be an "overaggressive" response to my vote upon chaotic_diablo for his self-vote, launching an attack against me while still voting for ibaesha.

As the argument goes on, he contradicts himself a couple of times, most notably the fact that he is both arguing that the current discussion was worthless and we should move on to something else, and then that he was gaining information from the current discussion. He posted these in the same post; I quoted them right at the end of the last huge one I made, if you want a quick reference. He also accused me of not responding to his points, while only selectively quoting my posts and having taken at least one phrase completely out of context.

It was mostly this dishonest style of argument that kept my vote on him, but I was mostly still open to other options had something scummier come up, until both the quote mentioned in Thesp's last post, and this:

You were the one that stated that all people who are linked are probably evil. Since you FoS'ed them all, you were suspicious of all of them to be mafia. If they are all mafia, they are together in something. So you actually were implying that they had something to do with eachother, you just refuse to see it.

The first sentence again is a dishonest interpretation of my point, but anyway. This paragraph here holds the strong assumption that there is only one mafia group within this game. How would he possibly know that? My response is that it is because he is part of said mafia group.

Unconscious assumptions that other people are townies + unconscious assumptions about the number of mafia groups = someone with extra knowledge which they're not telling. In my opinion.

I hope this post doesn't get me stabbed by Thesp. At least it's not full of quote boxes.

[Mackay]

I was about to comment on how the thread had exploded while I was asleep, but most of it was connor. I'm not sure I understand, it almost read as though he was posting at certain points while reading through the thread, but before that he seemed to have read it already (or at least Max' vote).

I nearly lynched TB in the last game I was in with him for the exact reasons that you lot are thinking of lynching him now.

Does he usually let slip that he thinks several people are pro-town?

You're also wishy-washy much on TB as a whole. Hmm...

I think TB, chaotic_diablo, and Primate are a scum crew together. Early guess, much more convinced about the first two, obviously.

I actually think that Primate's being pretty darn reasonable. However, the wishywashiness is suspicious, not even necessarily in conjunction with TB.

This is too hard, I just woke up and the words I'm looking for are escaping me. More after work, probably.

[Mackay]

I'm still here, just some issues irl that i have to take care off.
I'm currently thinking of a way to defend myself without being overdefensive, or making a big post.

I'll post as soon as i've got a sollution

I stated at the end of my last huge post that I'd rather you simply indicate which of your points I have not addressed than write another big response to me, at least, so that should help. Take as much space as you need though, I like big posts myself. =)

I hope all is well IRL.

[Mackay]

I don't know whether he has RL issues or not; it doesn't worry me either way other than hoping whatever-it-is is not too serious. I've

already

decided he is scum. =)

For the time being, I'll repeat my question to Masterchief and connor in the hope that they will respond this time - even a "nothing" would help - What stood out to the two of you upon reading this thread for the first time?

I must confess that I am more confident of getting a helpful answer from Masterchief than connor at this stage. V:)V (That smiley is supposed to look like it is shrugging. I'm not sure whether it actually does.)

[Mackay]

I'm sorry to hear that, TB.

If you're not up to playing, and want a replacement instead, I'm fine with waiting for one. If you want to keep playing, I'm fine with waiting for that too. I'm not a fan of the idea of "lynch by default because someone's got more important things to worry about".

[Mackay]

Why only TB's? My problem was with his dishonest arguing, and I can't really continue to talk about that if he's not doing it. It's pretty blatantly obvious that I'd be perfectly happy lynching him. Worst case scenario, he's telling the truth and we lose a vanilla townie. Certainly much less damaging, at least, than losing a power role. But I honestly don't think that is the case, as I see no reason for a pro-town player to make such manipulative arguments.

Who else do you find scummy, raj?

Masterchief, btw, thanks for the response to my earlier question. Very helpful. I'd thought maybe having read the thread all at once without diving in, you'd be able to see more. *shrug*

I apologise if this post is very jerky in tone. I'm extremely tired.

I mean jerky like awkward, but I guess I'm a bit of a jerk too

[Mackay]

I addressed a particular question to you and Connor - just wondering what/who stood out to you upon your first reading of the thread. It's not important anyway, I was just a bit cranky about your response ("That everyone started out with a random lynch."), as you had been very insightful otherwise, and it struck me as an unhelpful response. I don't think you meant it that way though, it was more me being tired and cranky and slightly frustrated by the sudden silence.

I'd like to hear from Connor, though... not so much a response as

anything at all

...

[Mackay]

Wintergreen, the problem with that is, if the mafia simply got PMs saying "you are the mafia" they'd know that there was no need to elaborate upon a role claim. I don't think that some roles would be given character names, and others not. Your having made the lack-of-townies-having-role-names public is appreciated, though, for this reason:

FOS: Primate

for failing to pick up on it. Just in case I'm wrong about some characters having names and others not. He has come out saying you're setting off his scumdar, indicating that he did not pick up on your "townie" hint - indicating that he is probably not a townie.

While I'm slinging FOSes, another one goes out to Masterchief - for FOSing somebody and stating that they "make sense" in the same sentence.

I personally wouldn't mind the TB quicklynch, if only because it saves our having to replace him, and also yields some valuable information at this time. Let it be known, by the way, that "wouldn't mind" does not mean I'm fully in support of it - I'm basically indifferent to whether we replace TB, or just lynch. There are other people of interest to have come up recently, though, so a replacement might be nice.

It would be nice to hear more from connor, and also Ibaesha. There are probably others who have been quiet recently - the game has rather stalled - but from what I hear, Ibby has good instincts, and connor just needs to get his act together.

[Mackay]

Before anyone starts attacking me for behaving as though I "know" wintergreen is a townie (well, that's what I'd do to myself, at least ), I do trust her at this point. The only reasons I can imagine for her to come out like that with an indirect roleclaim in protection of someone who was looking very scummy are a) she's a townie who sees what she believes to be a clue to his innocence and tries to prevent a mislynch, or b) he's a scumbuddy and she's exposed herself to try and protect him.

I do not think b) is the case, because her vote was already upon TB. I figure if she'd be blatant enough to try to help a scum-buddy like that, she'd be blatant enough to not be voting for him. Also, she seemed to find him suspicious enough for a vote, but it did seem to fizzle after he claimed townie. I think it checks out.

I generally try to keep assumptions out of my mafia posts, but that one slipped in unintentionally. I think she made it pretty obvious that she was claiming to be vanilla townie, and that her behaviour is consistent with what a townie would do - and I think that Primate's having ignored this is quite telling.

[Mackay]

Quite a long explanation for so simple a mistake don't you think?

It wasn't a "mistake", except in that I tend to keep my assumptions/suspicions to myself until I feel there is enough justification. For instance, I've got a horrible gut feeling about someone who's acted quite pro-town so far, but I'm not going to listen to it until I see something suspicious coming from them. My reason for not wanting to reveal who I believe is innocent should be fairly obvious. Seeing as I did reveal my feelings on this particular matter, I felt I should offer an explanation, so that people would not think it was an implicit assumption. Of course, that's rather counterproductive, as I knew even as I was posting that it would simply draw attention to the assumption. Nonetheless I'd rather not have left it there.. if I'm going to get in trouble for it, it's better that it happen now than late in the game.

If wintergreen turns out to be evil, then you can call it a mistake.

And yes, my explanations tend to be lengthy. See: this post.

[Mackay]

Ibaesha: Understood, and if TB turns up guilty, she will be worth a look - as will chaotic_diablo (though that one seems a little

too

obvious). The behaviour just doesn't ring scummy to me, though some of her past behaviour did.

Thesp: Again, my vote's there already, and I'm all for the info.

Masterchief:

There's nothing wrong with FoSing. I'm just giving out my suspicoins. That is what FoSing is right?

No, there's nothing wrong with FoSing. The issue people have is with the fact that you simultaneously appeared to agree with a person's statement, and cast suspicion upon them for the same statement. It's a contradictory action, and it reeks of someone not willing to take a definite side until they see which way the majority is leaning.

[Mackay]

Here is zu_Faul's vote count from the top of page 6. I did a quick look through, and I don't think anything has changed, but nonetheless, this is most definitely

unofficial

.

Max (1) - Coron
chaotic_diablo (1) - chaotic_diablo,
ibaesha (1) - Primate
tb (5) - ibaesha, mackay, rajrhcpfreak, thesp, wintergreen
mackay (1) - tb
Connor (2) - Max, Connor

I did only look through

very

quickly.

I do not have much to say (for once). I think at this point a TB lynch would be satisfactory. I'm sure I've stated that already. Now that I think about it, I think the shock of his news completely distracted me from the fact that I've felt him to be very manipulative. So I'm

definitely

happy with it.

Ummmm... yeah. *shuffles feet, waits for more people to post*

[Mackay]

I cannot speak for everyone else, but my reasons are (in order of priority):

* I find him highly scummy. I do not think a replacement will undo the impression he has made upon me.

* He has claimed vanilla townie. Therefore, assuming pro-town characters tell the truth (almost all cases), the worst case scenario is the lynch of a vanilla townie. Unfortunate, but better than losing a pro-town power, or outing them on day 1.

* We don't have a replacement yet, it's holding up the game, and I'm impatient.

Incidentally, that's six votes on TB. One more to hammer. zu_Faul has asked that we stop talking if a lynch is completed in his absence, so if anybody wishes to discuss anything further, be sure to speak up soon so that others know to withhold the final vote until the discussion is completed.

[Mackay]

Hint: not while they're in progress.

(Check out the "Queue" forum.)

[Mackay]

I'm going to re-read, it's been a while since yesterday.

[Mackay]

Why are you so certain it was a vig?