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

[TB]

I'm going to apologize right now... because I'm going to make another huge post.
I'm sorry to the ones who don't like this, but with all the votes based on Mackay's pseudo-logics, I have to do something.

I'll try to organise it a bit, so that you can easier read a few parts that interest you, and skip the others..

Ibaesha's post (#54)

You FoSed 4 people at once. I don't care if it's 1 FoS covering 4 people, or 4 FoSes. It counts the same and playing with semantics is scummy. I think it was definately over the top. You basically FoSed everyone involved in the current discussion.

Yes, I did FoSed everyone in the discussion there, that's why it were 4 FoSes. You clearly haven't counted the FoSes in post #27, so let me tell you this, there were 4 there as well, but you didn't responded to that. Explain that to me please.

you didn't give much else to talk about outside of a direct question to Thesp.

Care to explain what we currently talking about? According to you, we aren't talking about anything, since the old discussion has (fortunately) ended.

Finally, I flat disagree that not all discussion is useful. Different people find different things useful. I think math discussions suck and are completely unhelpful and confusing, but that's me. It's not the same for everyone.

Your point being? You disagree that not all discussion is useful, meaning that all discussion

is

useful, but then again you think some discussions are pointless.

Also, you are very very reactive to 2 votes.

That's my style of playing, I would have reacted the same to a single vote or even a (serious, i'm not counting Mackay's here) FoS.
I think Wintergreen and Primate can confirm this from the last game we played.

Mackay's post (#55)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
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?

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.

Why are the both of you persistently defending against accusations I didn't make?

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.

You said yourself that my posts are providing information. Do you not think that encouraging discussion does give us useful information?

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

But... but... you just said discussion gives information. What are you afraid this particular discussion will reveal?

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.

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.

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

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).

Backpeddling? Oh, backpedaling. Wait, backpedaling? When have I done anything of the sort?

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.
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.

I can see where the misunderstanding was here. I don't know whether c_d is a townie or not.

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

I will need some clarification here.

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

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

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

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?

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

I was in no way saying, or even implying that they were in anything together.

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.

It isn't more justifiable than voting for someone else, but neither is voting for somebody else? What?

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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

I haven't drawn any conclusions! Do you see me saying "c_d is scum"?

"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.

I voted him, AGAIN, for the correlation with Max' behaviour, not for the self-vote in and of itself.

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

Point out for me where I've backed down one step where it was not logically warranted

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

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.

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

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

Thank you 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.

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?

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.

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..

The fact that he and Max self-voted

And how is that not a part of his behaviour?

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

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

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

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

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

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?).

Now some smaller posts..

with the evidence aginst him is pretty bad.

What evidence is that then?

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

Like I said, I believe they are townies untill they do something that is scummy, and for as far as I can tell, c_d hasn't done anything like that yet, so there's no reason to believe he's scum.

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.

Perhaps you should read my post again and see the inconsistencies in your posts that I've pointed out, and that you didn't dare to respond to. At least I have explained why those so called "inconsistencies" are misinterpred by you.

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

Perhaps you are the last person to notice it, but the subject of the discussion has actually changed. I don't think this discussion is useless at all, you are putting words in my mouth, once again.

I'm not sure where the self-voting debacle is going still

It certainly is, that's still Mackay's reason, and the reason of all the people who have been following her like lemmings.

Now I believe I have pretty much everything covered, here comes the part in which I change my vote.

Unvote
vote: TB

Omg, I've selfvoted. I'm an idiot, Mackay fears me now and I'm dangerous to the town.
better:

Unvote
vote: Mackay

If anyone believes I don't have a reason, than read my posts.

Sorry for the long post, i'll try not to let it happena again

[ibaesha]

Yes, I did FoSed everyone in the discussion there, that's why it were 4 FoSes. You clearly haven't counted the FoSes in post #27, so let me tell you this, there were 4 there as well, but you didn't responded to that. Explain that to me please.

Read post #69.

Care to explain what we currently talking about? According to you, we aren't talking about anything, since the old discussion has (fortunately) ended.

We're currently talking about how you are scummy for attempting to quash discussion, became overly defensive when it was pointed out, and that you appear to possibly have knowledge about people's alignments. So yes, if you wanted to turn the discussion into suspicion of yourself, you've done a good job. Also, your statement here is a twisting of the truth since I never said or implicated anything of the sort. I think that's pretty scummy.

Your point being? You disagree that not all discussion is useful, meaning that all discussion is useful, but then again you think some discussions are pointless.

My point being that while I hate those type of discussions and I don't participate in them, that doesn't mean they're useless for everyone and that I should attempt to shut them down.

Or maybe I could use your point:

<snip>Any discussion in which people express their opinions on matters, thereby giving information is helpful<snip>

That's my style of playing, I would have reacted the same to a single vote or even a (serious, i'm not counting Mackay's here) FoS.
I think Wintergreen and Primate can confirm this from the last game we played.

I've been reading that game this evening. Because all of you are in it. So yep, I see you have an overeactive OMGUS style that rivals mine. Doesn't mean you're not scum though.

I could make some comments and respond to things you addressed to other people, but I won't. They can do that for themselves. I will, however, make an observation. With the ferocity you showed towards myself and Mackay, I would expect SOME suspicion of the 5th person to join your wagon. (Actually, I'd expect you to freak out considering your 'style') Especially when it's obviously a follow the wagon vote that put you two away from a lynch.

Something is up with that. Not sure which way.

FOS: wintergreen

[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.

[rajrhcpfreak]

I'm going to apologize right now... because I'm going to make another huge post.
I'm sorry to the ones who don't like this, but with all the votes based on Mackay's pseudo-logics, I have to do something.

I'll try to organise it a bit, so that you can easier read a few parts that interest you, and skip the others..

Ibaesha's post (#54)

You FoSed 4 people at once. I don't care if it's 1 FoS covering 4 people, or 4 FoSes. It counts the same and playing with semantics is scummy. I think it was definately over the top. You basically FoSed everyone involved in the current discussion.

Yes, I did FoSed everyone in the discussion there, that's why it were 4 FoSes. You clearly haven't counted the FoSes in post #27, so let me tell you this, there were 4 there as well, but you didn't responded to that. Explain that to me please.

you didn't give much else to talk about outside of a direct question to Thesp.

Care to explain what we currently talking about? According to you, we aren't talking about anything, since the old discussion has (fortunately) ended.

Finally, I flat disagree that not all discussion is useful. Different people find different things useful. I think math discussions suck and are completely unhelpful and confusing, but that's me. It's not the same for everyone.

Your point being? You disagree that not all discussion is useful, meaning that all discussion

is

useful, but then again you think some discussions are pointless.

Also, you are very very reactive to 2 votes.

That's my style of playing, I would have reacted the same to a single vote or even a (serious, i'm not counting Mackay's here) FoS.
I think Wintergreen and Primate can confirm this from the last game we played.

Mackay's post (#55)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
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?

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.

Why are the both of you persistently defending against accusations I didn't make?

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.

You said yourself that my posts are providing information. Do you not think that encouraging discussion does give us useful information?

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

But... but... you just said discussion gives information. What are you afraid this particular discussion will reveal?

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.

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.

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

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).

Backpeddling? Oh, backpedaling. Wait, backpedaling? When have I done anything of the sort?

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.
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.

I can see where the misunderstanding was here. I don't know whether c_d is a townie or not.

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

I will need some clarification here.

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

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

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

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?

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

I was in no way saying, or even implying that they were in anything together.

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.

It isn't more justifiable than voting for someone else, but neither is voting for somebody else? What?

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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

I haven't drawn any conclusions! Do you see me saying "c_d is scum"?

"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.

I voted him, AGAIN, for the correlation with Max' behaviour, not for the self-vote in and of itself.

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

Point out for me where I've backed down one step where it was not logically warranted

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

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.

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

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

Thank you 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.

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?

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.

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..

The fact that he and Max self-voted

And how is that not a part of his behaviour?

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

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

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

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

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

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?).

Now some smaller posts..

with the evidence aginst him is pretty bad.

What evidence is that then?

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

Like I said, I believe they are townies untill they do something that is scummy, and for as far as I can tell, c_d hasn't done anything like that yet, so there's no reason to believe he's scum.

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.

Perhaps you should read my post again and see the inconsistencies in your posts that I've pointed out, and that you didn't dare to respond to. At least I have explained why those so called "inconsistencies" are misinterpred by you.

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

Perhaps you are the last person to notice it, but the subject of the discussion has actually changed. I don't think this discussion is useless at all, you are putting words in my mouth, once again.

I'm not sure where the self-voting debacle is going still

It certainly is, that's still Mackay's reason, and the reason of all the people who have been following her like lemmings.

Now I believe I have pretty much everything covered, here comes the part in which I change my vote.

Unvote
vote: TB

Omg, I've selfvoted. I'm an idiot, Mackay fears me now and I'm dangerous to the town.
better:

Unvote
vote: Mackay

If anyone believes I don't have a reason, than read my posts.

Sorry for the long post, i'll try not to let it happena again

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH IM SCUM BLAH BLAH BLAH, im going to vote for myself because im cool, BLAH BLAH BLAH, now im voting for mackay

please die.

MOD: i think i fixed my quote tags so you can get rid of my post before this one.

[Thesp]

Everyone,

Please kill TB so we don't have to read any more self-indulgent posting diarrhea.

Kisses,
Thesp

[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.

[Thesp]

I hate the quote-and-reply game

I talk enough as it is

without

responding to things point-by-point.

Sorry again, all.

NOTHING GOOD IS COMING OF IT. USEFUL INFORMATION IS BEING LOST IN ALL THE INANE DRIVEL.

If someone else posts and I have to hit the Page Down button to read all of their post, I will find some way to stab them in the face.

Seriously. The scum just get to hide while this goes on. It's no help. Please lynch TB to make the bad men stop.

[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.)

[rajrhcpfreak]

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.

thats my fav part of the whole post..... the president has came in and asked me to do some stuff. so ill prolly be busy for the rest of the day.

[chaotic_diablo]

I've actually read both Mackay's and TB's posts and both have brought up some inconsistencies in the other. What troubles me most are the people who bandwagon TB and are not reading any of his posts and are instead, taking the side of the person who they support, assuming that he's made a good argument. IMO, the bystanders are just looking for a way to end day one as quickly as they can.

unvote

[rajrhcpfreak]

i have read it and every thing mackay has pointed out is how i feel. there is no reason for me to copy everything shes done and force everyone to read another 2 page summary of TB's posts.

[Thesp]

What troubles me most are the people who bandwagon TB and are not reading any of his posts and are instead, taking the side of the person who they support, assuming that he's made a good argument. IMO, the bystanders are just looking for a way to end day one as quickly as they can.

Whom is this directed at? Please be precise. Your life is on the line.

[chaotic_diablo]

The post is mostly directed to Raj. However, I feel that there are others who also fulfill the requirements to an extent.

i have read it and every thing mackay has pointed out is how i feel. there is no reason for me to copy everything shes done and force everyone to read another 2 page summary of TB's posts.

Have you even read TB's post?

Your life is on the line.

How so?

[connor]

sorry i forgot where vthe game was and i deleted my p.m.'s by acident

[connor]

+ my internet has been down since wednesday

[rajrhcpfreak]

Have you even read TB's post?

i just said i did.

[chaotic_diablo]

Have you even read TB's post?

i just said i did.

Saying and doing are two different words. I highly doubt you did the 'doing' part.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH IM SCUM BLAH BLAH BLAH, im going to vote for myself because im cool, BLAH BLAH BLAH, now im voting for mackay

please die.

You obviously didn't get the point of that post. I don't get how you can 'agree' with Mackay's arguments against a point if you don't even understand what she's refuting.

[Thesp]

The post is mostly directed to Raj. However, I feel that there are others who also fulfill the requirements to an extent.

Like who? Or are you going to continue to vaguely throw out accusations without substance?

How so?

Because your craptacular answers will get you vigged/lynched. I swear if I wasn't so sure TB hadn't made some major slip up I would vote for you forty times over now. If I could lynch two people at once you would be the other. plzdiekthxbai

[zu_Faul]

Votecount

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

With 12 lLive, it's 7 to lynch.

[connor]

ok i

vote:max

[b/]

[connor]

ok i

vote:max

[connor]

sorry verry sorry i forgot about this game

[Masterchief]

Sorry people I forgot about this game too and like thesp, i too am getting annoyed with all of these long posts. Also, I was wondering What evidence we have against tb?

[Thesp]

Sorry people I forgot about this game too and like thesp, i too am getting annoyed with all of these long posts. Also, I was wondering What evidence we have against tb?

Second, definately not all discussion is usefull. If there is an argument between townies over a small thing (such as the target of a random vote, a spelling error or whatever), it will hurt the town more than it helps.

Then he goes on for 45 lines on (IMHO) useless discussion. :rolleyes:

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

This is the biggest for me.