Mini 497 - Game Over

[JDodge]

Vote Count

:

-TinVision- (3): destructor, joost, OpposedForce
curiouskarmadog (2): vampyrusddg, -TinVision-
kabenon007 (2): Sephiroth, Shanba
Sephiroth (1): curiouskarmadog
Atticus (1): Aimee
vampyrusddg (1): Atticus

not voting (2): SilverPhoenix, kabenon007

Seven to lynch.

I am searching for a replacement for SilverPhoenix, as well as looking to see who needs to be prodded.

[joost]

If needed

Unvote, vote: vampyrusddg

.

Who did he replace? Nekka-Lucifer.

Why do I suspect him?
A) NL only made roughly 2 posts worth of contentful information. While in that stage of the game I was not much better, I admit, I do find this suspicious. Also, he makes a post asking for someone to explain why dusterhan is under suspicion. When asked about it, he explained that he didn't find dh scummy. Later votes dusterhan with little explanation.

B) Vampyrusdog's outrageous post being suspicious of me and dusterhan. In it, he claims that I sent him 2 questions (no four) which asked him for things that gave him a cop-out. This depends on us both being scum and me using a clever tactic to get a dumb person to answer in the correct way. Is away for awhile. FoS's Sephiroth for suspecting kabenon.

Vampyrusddg seems noncommittal. N-L seemed absent. Not much to read, but what there is to read seems scummy.

Good posting. I'd like to read an answer from Vamp to this. Also I think his vote for CKD is actually Nekka's vote for Dusterhan. Vamp should either confirm it or remove it.

[curiouskarmadog]

I cant believe you are pushing this crap. I am also shocked that even after I gave you a chance to defend yourself, you continue to lie.

Sephiroth- in the beginning I didn’t like seph’s play at all. Post 83 seemed like a backtrack/lie.

This is clearly not a backtrack or lie, firstly because I do not go back on any of my opinions. Secondly, because I have consistently said that I find his posts to be suspect, but not that I necessarily find

him

scummy. I could point to several posts that I find scummy from each player, this does not mean I am suspicious of all of those people.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

Post 60 (which is quoted in 83)

I voted Sephiroth cos everyone was voting and i was just going with the flow... or was i?

This post is ridiculous...First, going with the flow is scummy on it's own (and I think that

was

why he voted as he did). Second, saying something like "or was I?" Is simply confusing to the town, and therefore, anti town. I'm liking Duster less and less every time he posts.

The biggest attack I had on Duster. I said I was liking him less and less, I didnt even actually call him suspicious in any of my posts, simply call that one post suspect.

You did more than call out one post. You said you are liking him less and less every time he posts (more than one). You called him anti-town and that his action was scummy.

I think you were backtracking because you knew he was town…and when he was lynched, you wanted to be able to say, “Hey, I never thought he was scummy, look ma no votes”…Yet in post 60 you CLEARLY thought he was anti-town and scummy. You wanted to push the wagon without actually being on it.

Later he says he is not “yet” suspicious of duster, which is a contradiction.

How so? An argument cannot just be a claim. Please warrant your statements. Show me how I contradicted myself.[/quote]

After you called him anti-town, scummy, and said you are liking his posts less and less, you say you are not yet suspicious of him. You are contradicting yourself. Unless you want us to believe that when you call someone anti-town and scummy, you don’t actually think they are suspicious.

Seems like Seph, is trying to set up Kab, when duster comes up town in a lynch seph was for.

How is this a good point at all? Statistically, I expect that Duster will come up town. I do not want Duster lynched for scumminess. The fact that you do not know this proves that you did not actually read my post. Further, Duster coming up scum or town has nothing to do with why I'm suspicious of kab. I've said before and I'll say again: its because he has been consistently inconsistent.

How the hell do you suspect “statictically” anyone will come up town? Please quote where I said you want to lynch duster for scumminess? You even quoted where I said you want to lynch duster (and he comes up town). You are the one not reading posts. Speaking of being inconsistent, this entire quote is about you being inconsistent.

Dusterhan:

Earlier I pointed out that it would be a good idea to ignore Duster. It is quite clear that Duster does not plan to contribute anything to the game. Because of this, we have no idea of his alignment. Going by percentage, it is highly likely that Duster is town. However, after much thought, I'm starting to think that Duster may not be a bad choice of lynch after all. Firstly, there is the matter of info that we may get from a Duster lynch. People have said throughout the day how we don't get much info from a Duster lynch. But think about it; who has yet to post an opinion on the issue? As far as I can tell, everyone has a well documented opinion of a Duster lynch, and there is the matter of some odd behavior by certain players (tin and Kab's weird switches for example). The duster lynch could give us some good info. Second, Joost makes a good point in 213; If we dont lynch him now, when will we? I find scum NKing him highly unlikely. As joost said, the longer that Duster lives, the more he will hurt the town, and influence lynches. This will be especially bad in endgame. Thirdly, Duster is unwilling to scumhunt himself. He also asks "who are we picking on". I am very worried that late game he will be susceptible to being lead by scum and this will be VERY dangerous late in the game. So I think a Duster lynch would be a good move right now.

In this post, you state that you changed your mind (after “much” thought). You think the town should lynch duster, even though you think he town. You are actually making a case for the town to lynch..a town. “if we don’t lynch him now, when will we?” I don’t know, how about never. How about we focus on lynching mafia instead? Please tell me, giving duster’s play at this point the game, how he could possibly influence lynches. I cant find any posts at this point where anyone in the town says, “Hey duster has a point”. You are attacking Kab for changing his mind, but the fact that you are for a duster lynch when you think duster is town is ok..that fact that you just wanted to ignore him, but now lynch him is ok…that is hypocritical.

he never had his vote on duster….

Again, if you had read my post, you would know that I did not vote because I was going to wait until I had finished all of my PBP's. As it turned out, things came up, I never got around to finishing my PBP's. Thus, no duster vote.

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie. You don’t know what the future will hold. This case in point, Duster was replaced. Now aren’t you glad the town didn’t agree with you and lynch a townie?…somehow I doubt you are. I dont think you ever planned on voting duster. I also dont think you ever planned on finsihing that PBP. You thought the town was going to lynch Duster without you so you can buy yourself some town creds by saying "I never voted duster, and look I even said he was town".

My vote on you stands…and all of the reasons stated with that vote stands...also add you are a hypocritic too.


Going to finish the read.

[Sephiroth]

Sephiroth- in the beginning I didn’t like seph’s play at all. Post 83 seemed like a backtrack/lie.

This is clearly not a backtrack or lie, firstly because I do not go back on any of my opinions. Secondly, because I have consistently said that I find his posts to be suspect, but not that I necessarily find

him

scummy. I could point to several posts that I find scummy from each player, this does not mean I am suspicious of all of those people.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

Where do I call HIM scummy. WHERE. I call his post scummy. Do you not understand the difference? In my last post, I

explicitly

laid out how there IS a difference between finding a player scummy and finding a post or two of theirs scummy. Did you read that part?

Post 60 (which is quoted in 83)

I voted Sephiroth cos everyone was voting and i was just going with the flow... or was i?

This post is ridiculous...First, going with the flow is scummy on it's own (and I think that

was

why he voted as he did). Second, saying something like "or was I?" Is simply confusing to the town, and therefore, anti town. I'm liking Duster less and less every time he posts.

The biggest attack I had on Duster.

I said I was liking him less and less

, I didnt even actually call him suspicious in any of my posts, simply call that one post suspect.

You did more than call out one post.

You said you are liking him less and less

every time he posts (more than one). You called him anti-town and that his action was scummy.

First, both of those things which you use to prove that I did more than one post WERE IN THAT POST. So yeah, I did just attack that one post. Liking him less and less = I think he's scum? Thinking one of the things he did is scummy = I think he's scum? When did you make these giant leaps in logic? Also, you sure made a big profound point here (bolded text). You basically restated what I said in my post. Also, protown players are fully capable of taking action that is antitown, therefore calling his action antitown does NOT mean I think he's scum.

I think you were backtracking because you knew he was town…and when he was lynched, you wanted to be able to say, “Hey, I never thought he was scummy, look ma no votes”…Yet in post 60 you CLEARLY thought he was anti-town and scummy. You wanted to push the wagon without actually being on it.

Um, no. I felt he made an anti town and scummy play in the post I quoted. Not that his play was scummy overall. Again, antitown definitely does not make him scum, as bad town is just as capable of making antitown play. Just because you say CLEARLY does not make what you're saying true.

Later he says he is not “yet” suspicious of duster, which is a contradiction.

How so? An argument cannot just be a claim. Please warrant your statements. Show me how I contradicted myself.

After you called him anti-town, scummy, and said you are liking his posts less and less, you say you are not yet suspicious of him. You are contradicting yourself. Unless you want us to believe that when you call someone anti-town and scummy, you don’t actually think they are suspicious.

You see, I didn't call him scummy or anti town. I said his post were. Even had I said he as a player, not his actions, were anti town, this is in no way connected to thinking he's scum. I was explaining in this post, that although he made scummy actions, I did not think he was scum. This whole post was for that purpose, explaining that although I thought he had made a scummy post, I did not think he was scum. Seeing as this was the first time that officially stated my opinion on whether HE (not his posts) was scum, its certainly not a backtrack.

Seems like Seph, is trying to set up Kab, when duster comes up town in a lynch seph was for.

How is this a good point at all? Statistically, I expect that Duster will come up town. I do not want Duster lynched for scumminess. The fact that you do not know this proves that you did not actually read my post. Further, Duster coming up scum or town has nothing to do with why I'm suspicious of kab. I've said before and I'll say again: its because he has been consistently inconsistent.

How the hell do you suspect “statictically” anyone will come up town?

Simple: town almost always outnumber town. If we remove content, and lynch someone who we cant really get a read on, chances are that they
will turn up town.

Please quote where I said you want to lynch duster for scumminess?

You didn't. However it seemed implied when you attack me for listing him within my top four suspects, and say it is a contradiction that I would want him lynched when I think he is town. If that was not your intention, feel free to correct me.

Speaking of being inconsistent, this entire quote is about you being inconsistent.

Dusterhan:

Earlier I pointed out that it would be a good idea to ignore Duster. It is quite clear that Duster does not plan to contribute anything to the game. Because of this, we have no idea of his alignment. Going by percentage, it is highly likely that Duster is town. However, after much thought, I'm starting to think that Duster may not be a bad choice of lynch after all. Firstly, there is the matter of info that we may get from a Duster lynch. People have said throughout the day how we don't get much info from a Duster lynch. But think about it; who has yet to post an opinion on the issue? As far as I can tell, everyone has a well documented opinion of a Duster lynch, and there is the matter of some odd behavior by certain players (tin and Kab's weird switches for example). The duster lynch could give us some good info. Second, Joost makes a good point in 213; If we dont lynch him now, when will we? I find scum NKing him highly unlikely. As joost said, the longer that Duster lives, the more he will hurt the town, and influence lynches. This will be especially bad in endgame. Thirdly, Duster is unwilling to scumhunt himself. He also asks "who are we picking on". I am very worried that late game he will be susceptible to being lead by scum and this will be VERY dangerous late in the game. So I think a Duster lynch would be a good move right now.

In this post, you state that you changed your mind (after “much” thought).

How is it POSSIBLY a scumtell to openly change ones opinion? Would you rather I just start voting Duster without explanation? Townies do change their minds once in a while. To call that a scumtell really is ridiculous.

You think the town should lynch duster, even though you think he town. You are actually making a case for the town to lynch..a town.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

“if we don’t lynch him now, when will we?” I don’t know, how about never. How about we focus on lynching mafia instead? Please tell me, giving duster’s play at this point the game, how he could possibly influence lynches.

You take the term "influence" too literally. I am talking about his vote. As the number of players goes down, Dusters vote, easily influenced easily by others, becomes increasingly weighted in terms of who is lynched. One vote day 1, no big deal. 1 vote with 5 players left? Hell of a big deal. If Duster had continued his play, and we had made it to LYLO with him, you know how much influence he has over the lynch? He clearly showed that he is impressionable, saying "who are we picking on now?" and such, and joining my wagon because everyone else was. At LYLO, 2 scum, 3 town, 2 scum vote someone, Duster could easily jump on. This kind of affect could go on throughout the entire game, and be harmful to town. I think eliminating the possibility of an autoloss is worth losing a townie for. Also, as I said, I thought his play was antitown, ie hurtful to the town, ie better if it was not there. On top of that even, there's the possibility that I am wrong, and he is scum who plans to lurk all game and show up in endgame to win it, and on top of THAT, theres the fact that if we allow him to get to endgame (as town) with another townie and one scum, the townie will be in an extreme disadvantage because they will have no read on him.

I cant find any posts at this point where anyone in the town says, “Hey duster has a point”.

Again, youre taking "influence" too literally. Allowing duster to live turns him into a tool for the mafia to use in late game, or a mafioso himself who we have no read on.

You are attacking Kab for changing his mind, but the fact that you are for a duster lynch when you think duster is town is ok..

That doesnt make sense. Thats like "you think that rock is gray, but youre willing to throw a football!" They are unconnected. And I was attacking Kab for repeated unexplained changes of opinion (I was proven to be incorrect in some of my assumptions, which I can admit, unlike you).

that fact that you just wanted to ignore him, but now lynch him is ok…that is hypocritical.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even

that

type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

he never had his vote on duster….

Again, if you had read my post, you would know that I did not vote because I was going to wait until I had finished all of my PBP's. As it turned out, things came up, I never got around to finishing my PBP's. Thus, no duster vote.

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

You don’t know what the future will hold. This case in point, Duster was replaced. Now aren’t you glad the town didn’t agree with you and lynch a townie?

Yes, he got replaced. However, this is due to him dropping out of the game. When I made my post, he had been popping in and out. As long as a player is posting, they cant be replaced. Thats why I suggested the idea. But what I like about this is that YOU ASSUME THAT DUSTER IS TOWN. Now why would you know that? Perhaps because you're scum and he's not one of your buddies?

I dont think you ever planned on voting duster. I also dont think you ever planned on finsihing that PBP.

Good for you. I don't give two peanut decorated shits about what you think I planned on doing.

You thought

the town was going to lynch Duster without you so you can buy yourself some town creds by saying "I never voted duster, and look I even said he was town".

This is were I draw the line. Saying what you thought I was thinking is fine, when you actually present what you thought my motives were as a fact, not as your own opinion, thats a problem. And very suspect.

My vote on you stands…and all of the reasons stated with that vote stands...also add you are a hypocritic too.

Nice job restating your opinion. But next time, how about arguing the points I make? They are as follows.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

2) Saying I'm liking him less and less does not = I think he's scum. Nor does saying I think his actions are anti-town.

3) You have failed to explain why my argument for lynching Duster is bad besides yelling "HE"S A TOWNIE" at me. Please try to address why he was more valuable alive.

4) The latter part of your argument is mainly you hypothesizing about my motives, which is both wifom, and worthless.

Finally, to say that I had no intention of finishing my PBP's is pretty stupid seeing as I have already continued them to some extent since the original post.

[curiouskarmadog]

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s posts are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

I bet if you hear someone make a racist statement, and see them put up a noose, you don’t think they are racist too, right?

This is what you want us to believe.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused. I love how you go to length to defend your push (not vote) for a person you believe is town (who plays anti-town and post scummy things)...riiiight.

guys, do I really need to discuss why lynching someone you think is town is bad?

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

Yes, he got replaced. However, this is due to him dropping out of the game. When I made my post, he had been popping in and out. As long as a player is posting, they cant be replaced. Thats why I suggested the idea. But what I like about this is that YOU ASSUME THAT DUSTER IS TOWN. Now why would you know that? Perhaps because you're scum and he's not one of your buddies?

Oh look at this tale she is spinning, I am scum because I know duster is town and he isn’t one of my buddies!!…This is a gem….you really want to push this lie too?

Confirm vote spehiroth

I don’t think anyone should address this, yet. I want to hear this theory in full. Please Sephiroth continue…i am scum because...?

[Sephiroth]

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Nice warrantless assertion. Let's see how you back it up.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s posts are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

I bet if you hear someone make a racist statement, and see them put up a noose, you don’t think they are racist too, right?

This is clearly a false comparison. Scumtells are inherently when scum messes up, or does something by accident. Or, when you view something as scummy, it could be a misinterpretation by the person reading it. A racist comment is
1) certainly not by accident
2) cannot be misinterpreted (ie, i think he would say that because he is racist, but wait, he wouldn't want us to think that)
As determining whether posts are scummy or not is up to interpretation, while racist comments are racist any way you look at them, there is a clear difference.

Again, let me stress this: He made 1 post I found scummy. The rest of the game he lurked. It's not like I had seen repeated scummy posts, in which case I would start to find him scummy. There was one post I found scummy, not enough to convince me he is scum.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…

Wow. You once again TOTALLY ignored ALL of my arguments. I'll just repost my example then (which you also failed to address):

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

This time, try addressing this.

wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused. I love how you go to length to defend your push (not vote) for a person you believe is town (who plays anti-town and post scummy things)...riiiight.

I envy your ability to bring emotion to the forefront of your arguments, and act as if it actually means something. First, your actions are scummy. Are you scum? I think it might be likely at this point because of the combined scummy posts which you've made (I'll get to that tomorrow)

guys, do I really need to discuss why lynching someone you think is town is bad?

To relate this to my previous example, why cant I say "Guys, do I really have to explain why I'm not scum?" They are equal in the amount of assumption it would take for the rest of the town to believe. Don't just go with what you've been spoon fed your whole mafia career, argue it. Again, your insistence that I am scum for disagreeing with you on a point WHICH YOU REFUSE TO ARGUE is very suspicious.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

You may have never said it, but you never deny it. Let me ask you. if you do not find it suspicious, then why bring it up in a case against me? Unless you're scum trying to inflate a weak case to help a bad lynch, then theres not reason to insult me as a person for something that doesn't increase your guilt of me. I believed him to have made repeated changes of opinion without explanation ( I was proven wrong, so I backed down). I, on the other hand, made a single change of opinion, and explained it quite thoroughly.

Yes, he got replaced. However, this is due to him dropping out of the game. When I made my post, he had been popping in and out. As long as a player is posting, they cant be replaced. Thats why I suggested the idea. But what I like about this is that YOU ASSUME THAT DUSTER IS TOWN. Now why would you know that? Perhaps because you're scum and he's not one of your buddies?

Oh look at this tale she is spinning, I am scum because I know duster is town and he isn’t one of my buddies!!…This is a gem….you really want to push this lie too?

Firstly, I am a he. Secondly, nice appeal to emotion. Thirdly, this is not a lie, because it's not a statement, but a proposition (note the "perhaps"). Seeing as propositions are simply suggestions of possibility, it inherantly CANNOT be a lie. Also, you so "push this lie

too

", which is a subtle way of implying that I've lied before. Could you quote where I've lied thus far? I'd be oh so interested in seeing where I've lied.

I don’t think anyone should address this, yet. I want to hear this theory in full. Please Sephiroth continue…i am scum because...?

It's late, I have things to do, I cannot do anything tonight. Your attempt to direct and control the town as well as discussion is noted. I plan to write up my case on you tomorrow night.

As a side note, let's look again at the start of your post:

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Mistrust: I never lied in my entire retort. Your only attempt to call something I did a lie fails because propositions cannot actually be lies. So my post does not have mis-truth.
Horrid reasoning: You didnt attack my reasoning at all. You simply stated "You're wrong", and questioned the distinction I make between scummy posts and scummy players.
Misrepresentations: So far you accused me of misrepresenting you by saying that you thought being hypocritical was scummy. But through logic I've shown how it was in fact implied, and that if I was wrong, it was at most a misunderstanding, not a blatant misrepresentation as you present it.
So you can see, my case really had NONE of these things that you claim in the beginning. You have a very bad habit of throwing in these buzzwords without warrant and hoping it helps your case. It's really not.

[curiouskarmadog]

I am going to wait to retort after you have crafted your case against me. I want to hear you go more in detail how I am probably scum because I know duster is town and he isnt one of my scum buddies, that was great I am still laughing. I look forward to your case and your OMGUS vote.

[joost]

This has gone far enough,

FoS: CuriousKarmaDog

You replaced Dusterhan, it's faily silly of Sephiroth to have forgotten that. But Cavane's first post still includes Duster as player and there have been several replacements already. The fact that you use this obvious mistake (it's not a lie, not a scumtell nor a towntell) as an argument makes me suspicious of you. It distracts from his arguments which for the most part seem solid.

I don't think anybody including you can claim that Dusterhan was helpful for the town. In fact some of his posts were confusing and disruptive. Whatever his role in this game, his actions were anti-town. Sephiroth was not the only one to say that. I agree with you that the fact that Seph didn't vote for Duster was suspicious. But I (and several others) were willing to lynch him and accept the consequences if he came up town. I don't think getting rid of a disruptive player is a bad thing even if his role is townie.

Had Duster not been replaced he would have made it to the end game and the fact that his only tactic seemed to be OMGUS he would have been dangerous to the town. Sephiroth was right to point that out, and like I said, he wasn't the only one. You yourself said that you were susprised he didn't get lynched yet.

Besides that there is the fact that since everyone had given his opinion on Duster and the dusterwagon, a lynch would have given us a lot of information. I feel it's a weaker argument, but you have ignored this completely and instead focused on silly mistakes and the meaning of scummy behaviour vs scummy people.

I feel Sephiroth has explained himself and I don't find him scummy.

[curiouskarmadog]

I am calling him out, joost...

he called duster scummy, then when duster's wagon rose, he came out and said he never thought duster was suspicious. I think he did this so once duster was hung and it came out he was town, he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

When I called him out on it, he comes back with “I never thought duster was scummy.” He wants the town to believe that he thought duster's POSTS were scummy and his ACTIONS were anti-town, but he never thought duster himself was scum. Joost, are you telling me you believe this?

Before I replaced in he was pushing to lynch someone he thought was town...again, joost, are you ok with lynching townie, versus trying to find scum?

Then he is pushing a theory (maybe not a lie) that I must be scum because I know duster is town and he is not one of my buddies, not even checking the facts before putting it out there. Now he is going to be putting together a case against me, but he knows nothing about what is going on in this game. Ask yourself this, why is he so sure I am scum, when he does even know who I am replacing? Are you willingly to believe any case this guy pushes when it is obvious he does not have a handle on the game?..I am looking forward to reading the OMGUS vote and case.

FOS joost

Why did you take it upon yourself to correct him joost? You werent curious how far he would have tried to take it....it would have told us a lot about him..

[joost]

I am calling him out, joost...

he called duster scummy, then when duster's wagon rose, he came out and said he never thought duster was suspicious. I think he did this so once duster was hung and it came out he was town, he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

He said it was a good idea to lynch Duster. But I agree with you that he should have voted for him.

When I called him out on it, he comes back with “I never thought duster was scummy.” He wants the town to believe that he thought duster's POSTS were scummy and his ACTIONS were anti-town, but he never thought duster himself was scum. Joost, are you telling me you believe this?

From what I understand, and I agree with this, it didn't matter to him if Duster's role was town or not. He was unhelpful and disruptive and a liability to the town. So yes I believe this.

Before I replaced in he was pushing to lynch someone he thought was town...again, joost, are you ok with lynching townie, versus trying to find scum?

I thought Duster was scum and I'm getting more and more confident that I was right. But even if Duster was town I was ok with the lynch. I also don't think that it interfered with finding scum. While I was trying to get Duster lynched I noticed a lot of interesting behaviour on others, like Knuck and Tinvision.

Then he is pushing a theory (maybe not a lie) that I must be scum because I know duster is town and he is not one of my buddies, not even checking the facts before putting it out there. Now he is going to be putting together a case against me, but he knows nothing about what is going on in this game. Ask yourself this, why is he so sure I am scum, when he does even know who I am replacing? Are you willingly to believe any case this guy pushes when it is obvious he does not have a handle on the game?..I am looking forward to reading the OMGUS vote and case.

I called Seph's mistake silly, maybe sloppy and careless better describe it and it does weaken his credibility as a player. But you could have used this argument right away instead of basically making fun of him. But like I said making a mistake like this is not a scum tell. Destroying someone's arguments by dangling it in someone's face is. The fact that you ignored his arguments and focused on this is why I find you suspicious and why I stopped this.

FOS joost

Why did you take it upon yourself to correct him joost? You werent curious how far he would have tried to take it....it would have told us a lot about him..

It would probably have told us a lot about him, but I don't think it's a very gentlemanlike way of playing the game. That is why I stopped it. Is there any reason besides OMGUS that you find me suspicious?

I feel I have defended Sephiroth enough now.

[curiouskarmadog]

Joost, if you think I am scum as you have indicated in this post, why not vote for me? I hope you are not waiting for a bandwagon.

I find you suspicious, because it WOULD have told us a lot about him. The fact that you stopped him from making a bigger ass of himself, than he aready has, has been noted. Joost, you are here to find scum right?

Since when has the game mafia been about being a gentleman? Some might argue that your playstyle (up until now) is not gentleman-like. Speaking of that, why the change in playstyle? This entire game you have been actively pushing and looking for scum. Seems to me someone who is town would want to see how far Seph would continue to push her crap logic. But now, you have taken the defense of someone you supposedly dont know the alignment of. Now why is that?

[joost]

Yes I'm waiting for a Tinvision bandwagon at the moment. I find him more scummy than you at the moment which is why I'm not voting for you yet.

Technically I'm here to win the game and part of my strategy is finding scum, another part is preventing people who are pro-town to get lynched. Which is why I found it necessary to speak up. I think defending people is not a thing only scum would do. I am willing to link myself with Sephiroth and I will probably suffer the consequences if I'm wrong and Seph turns up scum. But between you and him, I think you're scum and he's not.

Someone who is town would stop a player who is trying to confuse the town by letting someone make mistakes which can easily be corrected. Bad play does not equal scum play and using bad play as evidence for scumminess is in itself a scummy thing to do.

[Sephiroth]

I am going to wait to retort after you have crafted your case against me. I look forward to your case and your OMGUS vote.

Yeah, you're right. That does seem like a good excuse to not respond to my points, get caught up in my attacks on you, and pretend this whole thing never happened. It was silly of me to forget that you replaced Duster, it's true. But this doesnt mean you can
1) assume I don't know anything else that's going on in the game, or
2) ignore my refutation of your argument.
Good try though.

he called duster scummy, then when duster's wagon rose, he came out and said he never thought duster was suspicious. I think he did this so once duster was hung and it came out he was town, he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

Firstly, you have still not found where I call HIM scummy. I call his post and the action within that post scummy. Not him. So your argument fails in that aspect. Secondly, even were it true, according to you, you're a not accusing me of being suspicious because of hypocrisy. So what is left of your argument then?

he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

Cold hard wifom, thats what. Not to mention that its a conjecture.

When I called him out on it, he comes back with “I never thought duster was scummy.” He wants the town to believe that he thought duster's POSTS were scummy and his ACTIONS were anti-town, but he never thought duster himself was scum. Joost, are you telling me you believe this?

He should. I've shown numerous times how I never called him scummy, just that post/action that he took. You so far have failed on several occasions to show a post in which I call HIM scummy. Your failure to understand the distinction certainly doesnt make you right.

Before I replaced in he was pushing to lynch someone he thought was town...again, joost, are you ok with lynching townie, versus trying to find scum?

I think I've provided solid reasoning for my advocation. NOT ONCE have you argued anything on the topic except "Der, ya dont lynch a townie, hyuck hyuck".
For the third time, in hope that you will finally address it, I refer you back to my example of how this doesnt work:

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

Then he is pushing a theory (maybe not a lie) that I must be scum because I know duster is town and he is not one of my buddies, not even checking the facts before putting it out there.

Do you go back and read the first post every time you post a retort to my case? I didnt think so. Do you repetitively check to make sure who is who's replacement every time you post? I didn't think so. Neither do I. I made a simple understandable mistake, seeing as Duster was still listed as a player. Further, how is not checking the facts a scumtell?

Now he is going to be putting together a case against me, but he knows nothing about what is going on in this game.

When did forgetting that you were Dusters replacement turn into not knowing anything about the game? I like how you make these tiny little things to make it LOOK like my play has been a lot worse then it really has. Very suspect.

Ask yourself this, why is he so sure I am scum, when he does even know who I am replacing?

1) How am I "so sure youre scum"? I said I was starting to feel that way. That's certainly a profound statement, it certainly sounds like I'm convinced.
2) What bearing does the play of your predecessor have on how right I am about whether you're scum, when I didn't think your predecessor was scum? Have you stopped to think that perhaps I think you're scum based on YOUR bad play?

Are you willingly to believe any case this guy pushes when it is obvious he does not have a handle on the game?

Firstly, how about you let the town hear the case instead of trying to write it off before it's even posted? Second, this is an ad hominem. Even the most out of it players could have valuable insight that can catch scum in a game.

FOS joost

Why did you take it upon yourself to correct him joost? You werent curious how far he would have tried to take it....it would have told us a lot about him..

Yes, letting a townie carry a mistake. I wouldnt have turned that into a major point even, in the context of the case, since I wouldve said that the role of duster is unknown, as long as I was following that train of thought. The fact that you would purposefully mislead a player, role unknown, is yet another point against you. Case coming up in a second.

[Sephiroth]

The CKD Case

I. The misrepresentation:

A.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

you continue to lie.

Ckd accused me of lying. However, I have several times shown that I called Dusters post scummy, not Duster himself. I asked CKD to find just one place where I call duster scummy, and he failed. Yet he still accuses me of lying. At the very most, the fact that I make the distinction between scummy actions and scummy players and he does not is a meta debate. To call my opinion an outright lie is a

blatant

misrepresentation.


B.

Yet in post 60 you CLEARLY thought he was anti-town and scummy. You wanted to push the wagon without actually being on it.

Here CKD continues to misrepresent me. First, by continuing to try to convince me that I called him scummy. He even throws one thing I did do (call him anti town) with something that I didnt do (call him scummy). Then, he presents his opinion of my motives as if they are fact, in his next sentence. Two more blatant misrepresentations.


C.

Also your earlier backtrack/lie makes you quite scummy looking.

There was no backtrack, or lie. I had at that point not stated whether I thought Duster was scum or not, so I could not have possibly backtracked. Misrepresentation number 4.


D.

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

As I showed at the end of my post, I made no misrepresentations, no lies, and you didnt even attack my reasoning. So this your 5th now.


E.

you really want to push this lie too?

By putting "too" at the end, you imply that this is yet another lie in a series. As I've shown, I have not lied throughout my attacks on you nor in my defense from your attack. Number 6.


F.

Again, you misquote me.

When you say misquote, you imply that I actually took one of your posts, quoted it, changed around the words, and presented it as if you actually said it, which is WAY off. I simply misunderstood what you were attacking me for. Also, your use of the word "again" attempts to imply that I have misquoted you before, which is also, a blatant misrepresentation, if not a borderline lie.


G.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a

post

from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s

posts

are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".

So that is a whopping

8

misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).

II. Appeals to Emotion:

A.

Oh look at this tale she is spinning

Here you imply that I am trying to spread a falsehood, or knowingly build a case on a lie, when the truth is that I simply forgot who you replaced. This appeal to emotion is an attempt to imply that I made a scummy play, when I in fact did not, as well as an attempt to set a precedent for my posts being "funny", or not worth consideration.


B.

...riiiight.

A use of sarcasm without reference to any points, a handy way to get around arguments, while decreasing their validity in the eyes of others.


C.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused.

Here, you use your appeal to emotion, your mock confusion, as a way of mocking my argument without addressing it. I actually find it funny, because in the end you are just reinforcing my point that you simply do not have the capacity to understand the distinction I make, and it ends up weakening your case. Also, you use it to get around my argument, which I'll get to in my next main point. For now, I'll conclude this one.

Several times you make an appeal to emotion as a way of damaging my arguments and acting as if I'm obviously wrong. However, you never actually disprove my arguments. You're essentially just sitting there going "Yeah, right. Yeah, right." This attempt to prove me wrong without doing any work is another thing I don't see a townie doing. If a townies case ahs been well defended against, they back down. Scum has much more reason to push a case despite losing the main points. Thats what these appeals to emotion allow you to do.

III. Dropped, or Ignored Points

A.
Repeatedly, CKD has stated his points, without actually addressing my arguements against him.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s posts are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

I bet if you hear someone make a racist statement, and see them put up a noose, you don’t think they are racist too, right?

This is clearly a false comparison. Scumtells are inherently when scum messes up, or does something by accident. Or, when you view something as scummy, it could be a misinterpretation by the person reading it. A racist comment is
1) certainly not by accident
2) cannot be misinterpreted (ie, i think he would say that because he is racist, but wait, he wouldn't want us to think that)
As determining whether posts are scummy or not is up to interpretation, while racist comments are racist any way you look at them, there is a clear difference.

Again, let me stress this: He made 1 post I found scummy. The rest of the game he lurked. It's not like I had seen repeated scummy posts, in which case I would start to find him scummy. There was one post I found scummy, not enough to convince me he is scum.

He, I strongly rebutt both his argument and example. Yet in his next post, he restates his original argument! He doesn't even touch on my counterarguments, just ignores them.


B.
I've brought this up tons of times. Number of times CKD's addressed it? 0

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…

Wow. You once again TOTALLY ignored ALL of my arguments. I'll just repost my example then (which you also failed to address):

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

This clearly shows why he can't just assume a point, and it also REPEATEDLY asks him to argue his point about why lynching a possible townie in this situation is bad.


C.
I have now shown how his misrepresentations of my response were incorrect:

As a side note, let's look again at the start of your post:

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Mistrust: I never lied in my entire retort. Your only attempt to call something I did a lie fails because propositions cannot actually be lies. So my post does not have mis-truth.
Horrid reasoning: You didnt attack my reasoning at all. You simply stated "You're wrong", and questioned the distinction I make between scummy posts and scummy players.
Misrepresentations: So far you accused me of misrepresenting you by saying that you thought being hypocritical was scummy. But through logic I've shown how it was in fact implied, and that if I was wrong, it was at most a misunderstanding, not a blatant misrepresentation as you present it.
So you can see, my case really had NONE of these things that you claim in the beginning. You have a very bad habit of throwing in these buzzwords without warrant and hoping it helps your case. It's really not.

He has not responded.


D.

You thought

the town was going to lynch Duster without you so you can buy yourself some town creds by saying "I never voted duster, and look I even said he was town".

This is were I draw the line. Saying what you thought I was thinking is fine, when you actually present what you thought my motives were as a fact, not as your own opinion, thats a problem. And very suspect.

No response.


E.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

2) Saying I'm liking him less and less does not = I think he's scum. Nor does saying I think his actions are anti-town.

3) You have failed to explain why my argument for lynching Duster is bad besides yelling "HE"S A TOWNIE" at me. Please try to address why he was more valuable alive.

4) The latter part of your argument is mainly you hypothesizing about my motives, which is both wifom, and worthless.

Finally, to say that I had no intention of finishing my PBP's is pretty stupid seeing as I have already continued them to some extent since the original post.

He ignores my summary of my main points.

So yeah. He has a habit of just ignoring any arguments that hurt him. A townie would NEVER do this, but address everything.

IV. Assumptions of Validity

A.

guys, do I really need to discuss why lynching someone you think is town is bad?

Another refusal to address my point, and an assumption taht his side is correct, without addressing my arguments.


B.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused. I love how you go to length to defend your push (not vote) for a person you believe is town (who plays anti-town and post scummy things)...riiiight.

Here, he simply restates his point (doesn't at all address my argument, then uses an appeal to emotion to change the subject quickly. He assumes that hanging a *possible* townie is bad.


I may continue this later, but this is it for now. CKD, throughout our debate, I have tried very hard to reason with CKD and defend myself with logical arguments. In response, he has misrepresented my points, assumed that he is correct, appealed to emotion, and flat out ignored my points. All of these actions were clearly taken to inflate and promote what was in actuality a weak and predominantly false case. In addition to this, I will throw in the action that I thought was scummy from Duster, his attempt to go with the flow. Finally, I would like to add that he attempted to purposefully mislead me, a role that is unknown to him. Why would a protown player try to mislead a player that is possibly protown, and at the very least a helpful contributor. This case from CKD is ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure that with all of these scummy actions adding up, he has to be scum. So yeah. Keep the bullshit coming CKD.

Vote: Ckd

[vampyrusddg]

Sorry I havn't been keeping up as much as I really should guys, I promise to start posting more often rather than just keeping up with the reading.

On the CKD case:

I'm convinced, but not mostly because of Sephiroth. It was that little OMGUS FOS against joost and then:

I look forward to your case and your OMGUS vote.

How would his vote be OMGUS when he's presenting a case against you? OMGUS refers to a knee jerk action directed back at someone who just attacked you with no case behind it.
As it is Sephiroth has presented an eloquent well thought out case against you and you started off defending yourself fairly well, but it's now obvious your scum going to pieces over 1 vote, an FOS, and an old vote left by me which if I'd realised was there would probably have removed.

But at least that saves me the trouble of moving it

[-TinVision-]

Appeals to emotion? Check.

Ad hominem attacks? Check.

Attributing malice where ignorance suffices (e.g. Sephiroth forgetting ckd replaced dusterhan)? Check and mate.

These are things I might forgive in a new player, but anyone who's played enough to have the “Mafia Scum” title should know better.

I’m quite happy with my vote carrying over from Knuck to curiouskarmadog.

[kabenon007]

TinVision, I believe that, as Sephiroth made the mistake too, that CKD replaced duster. Right? It's tough to decipher with jdodge not having mod priveleges here.

As for this whole exchange, in the beginning I was going to side with CKD. I thought Sephiroth was repeating himself a bit, and that CKD was bringing up good points. But as the argument continued, I saw that CKD was running out of things to say, resorting to appeals to emotion, attacking the word choice or mistakes of Sephiroth, and just basically shirking and avoiding the questions. And I realized that Sephiroth kept repeating himself because what he was saying was true. So now, Sephiroth comes out on top in my mind.

HOS: CKD

I want to hear him one last time before I vote, and would also like to see a vote count.

[kabenon007]

Also, I see that SilverPhoenix has been online and posting, and so has either lost interest in this game or is lurking. Post please, Silver!

[curiouskarmadog]

The CKD Case

I. The misrepresentation:

A.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

you continue to lie.

Ckd accused me of lying. However, I have several times shown that I called Dusters post scummy, not Duster himself. I asked CKD to find just one place where I call duster scummy, and he failed. Yet he still accuses me of lying. At the very most, the fact that I make the distinction between scummy actions and scummy players and he does not is a meta debate. To call my opinion an outright lie is a

blatant

misrepresentation.

The lie here is that you want this town to believe that you called duster’s posting scummy and his actions anti-town, but you didn’t find him scummy. Explain to us what actions actually make someone “scummy” in your point of view. Please address what “I am liking him less and less”..WHY are you liking him less and less?

Point A, B, C, all have to do with this basic point.

uot;]Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

As I showed at the end of my post, I made no misrepresentations, no lies, and you didnt even attack my reasoning. So this your 5th now.

Fine, if I need to explain the most elementary points of this game I will. We need the majority to win. We need to lynch scum, not townies to win. The fact that you were trying to push a case to lynch someone who you thought was townie, based one YOUR conjecture of their future actions is scummy. I wouldn’t have a problem with you if you simply admitted you thought duster was scummy. Once the town obviously wasn’t going to lynch duster based on his “scummy” posts and “anti-town” actions, you change up tactics to “I think duster (who is town) but he will hurt us in the long run, lets lynch him”

E.

From my point of view, you ARE lying. Your lie is that fact that you want this town to believe you didn’t think duster was scum at a certain point. That point in the game is key and I think you that I have caught you in your ruse, which is way you are going to such great length to say you didn’t think duster was scummy. Anybody ask themselves why he couldn’t just simply say..”yeah I thought duster was scummy”? Anybody ask themselves why he wants you to believe that he thought duster’s posts were scummy and his actions anti-town, but didn’t think duster himself was scum?

F.

Again, you misquote me.

When you say misquote, you imply that I actually took one of your posts, quoted it, changed around the words, and presented it as if you actually said it, which is WAY off. I simply misunderstood what you were attacking me for. Also, your use of the word "again" attempts to imply that I have misquoted you before, which is also, a blatant misrepresentation, if not a borderline lie.

Maybe I meant misrepresented versus misquote.

1.)

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

Here you are trying to say I said changing one’s mind is hypocritical. Which is either a misrepresentation or a lie. I never said that. You didn’t quote me in the post, but you are suggesting I said something I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO SAYING…I say misquote..but maybe it is a misrepresentation?..which is worse?

.


G.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a

post

from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s

posts

are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".

So that is a whopping

8

misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).

Please address this…don’t just call it a misrepresentation.

Do you really want us to believe when you post that you like someone less and less, when someone’s posts are scummy, when you think someone’s actions are anti-town, that you are not suspicious of them or think they are scum?

LOL, I am not even addressing the appeals of to emotion points. They are ridiculous. Please tell me how sarcasm and angry posts = scum.

I haven’t retorted to why “lynching a townie is a good thing” because I thought it was elementary. You lynch someone when they are acting scummy, but could be town. You have stated and are pushing to have us believe that you thought duster was town…not town, that could be scum…but just town. That is scummy.

Just because I don’t go line by line when addressing your posts doesn’t mean points are dropped. That is too ridiculous. If you ask me a question, I will address it.

The only thing is this whole case you MIGHT have a point about is the fact I didn’t address why I thought lynching a townie was a bad idea. I thought this was common knowledge.

I think you are lying you say I misrepresenting you. You say I am ignoring points, but you have not asked questions. “Appeals to emotion” example are sad. Even if they are appeals of emotion how is that scummy?


Oh and look the second most scummiest person in the game (tinvision) agrees with you…good job.

At any rate, we can keep going around in circles. I think you are scum…I think I caught you in your ruse. Now I am purposely misleading you? You were about ready to pose a case that I was scum based on your conjecture that I know he was town because he wasn’t one of my scum buddies. I wanted you to discredit yourself. Tell me, how am I NOT protown? I think you are scum, I wanted to prove to this town how full of crap your cases are. I am attacking you because I think you are scum = protown.

[kabenon007]

Appeals to emotion are scum tactics because they don't rely on logic to come to a conclusion. You are trying to get someone to make a decision based on feelings, which can easily be manipulated. Logic, however, while not foolproof, is a much more solid base on which to make an argument. Emotions vary from person to person, so they are harder to refute and say, well, you couldn't have felt that way, because no one can know how another person was truly feeling. But we can know what they truly posted and said.

[curiouskarmadog]

so was Speh examples truly appeals to emotion?

[kabenon007]

sarcasm and angry posts, as you yourself called them, are indeed appeals to emotion. They are, rather than appealing to us to think, appealing to us to feel as you feel, that his attacks on you are ridiculous rather than appealing to us to think that his attacks are full of holes.

[Sephiroth]

The lie here is that you want this town to believe that you called duster’s posting scummy and his actions anti-town, but you didn’t find him scummy. Explain to us what actions actually make someone “scummy” in your point of view. Please address what “I am liking him less and less”..WHY are you liking him less and less?

Point A, B, C, all have to do with this basic point.

Ok, I'll address this one last time (or at least I hope you understand this time):
1) Anti town does NOT mean scummy. I repeat, it does NOT mean scummy. It means that they are playing in a way which hurts the town. Scum can do this, town can do this. This in no way should tell you that I think he is scum.
2) When I said I liking him less and less, I meant it in a meta sense mainly. I really dislike players who post no content, yet post frequently. I tend to lynch them as a meta strategy.
3) I'm not saying the actions he took don't have the capability to make someone scummy,

if combined with other evidence

. I'm saying that there wasn't enough evidence for me to think him scummy. Only that he made a scummy post. An isolated occurrence does not make a player scummy.

And even if you don't agree with me, this is my meta opinion. This is a meta debate at this point, and it certainly isn't a lie.

Fine, if I need to explain the most elementary points of this game I will. We need the majority to win.

I agree with you up to here.

We need to lynch scum, not townies to win.

It's true that scum must be lynched in order for the town to win. However, to think that we are going to lynch scum every time, or that this is necessary to win, then you're being ridiculous. Once I had established that losing a townie day 1 is not a huge detriment to a town (it usually happens anyways), I weighed the pros and cons. The only con is that he statistically is likely to be protown. Thats about it. The pros were lots of info, eliminating the possibility that he could make it to endgame and OMGUS us into a loss, or even just the problem that it is impossible to get a read on a player of that style, so any townie stuck in 3 player endgame with (town)duster and a scum would be screwed. Then we look to the fact that there is NO WAY that scum would eliminate a noncontributor, and see that we must deal with this problem, because if he makes that endgame, he is a huge detriment. Not to mention that his lynch gives us a wealth of information. Plus, I'd rather lynch a noncontributor then an essentially random contributor. Now I have established that town should probably lynch him to help themselves. When we think of throwaway lynches, when can we afford one? Day 1. That was my logic, and still is my logic. If you see fault in it, attack it's weaknesses, dont just say that townies are important.

The fact that you were trying to push a case to lynch someone who you thought was townie, based one YOUR conjecture of their future actions is scummy.

My conjecture? Do you think that he would have started posting content? Do you think he would've been readable in a 3 man endgame? Just because it is a conjecture doesnt make it false, and additionally, I dont think this even is a conjecture. Barring replacement (which seemed unlikely leading up to my post) my predictions WOULD have come true.

I wouldn’t have a problem with you if you simply admitted you thought duster was scummy.

This is ridiculous. I felt that he deserved to be lynched based off of his future detriment to town. I'm not going to lie, and say I thought he was scummy just so I can appease you.

Once the town obviously wasn’t going to lynch duster based on his “scummy” posts and “anti-town” actions, you change up tactics to “I think duster (who is town) but he will hurt us in the long run, lets lynch him”

I dont think it was so clear that people didnt suspect him enough to lynch him. There were at least 3 people at the time expressing suspicion on him.
Regardless, I assure you I seriously thought this through. I'm also not the only player with this view. If you havent seen it before, then that's odd.

E.

From my point of view, you ARE lying.

Your opinion. Exactly. Your opinion which cannot be verified at all, and is COMPLETELY your word vs mine, youre willing to be absolutely sure I'm scum based on that. And that is ridiculous.

Your lie is that fact that you want this town to believe you didn’t think duster was scum at a certain point.

I dont know what to say. I've given my explanation hundreds of times. I never thought he was scum. There just wasnt enough evidence, just that one post.

That point in the game is key and I think you that I have caught you in your ruse, which is way you are going to such great length to say you didn’t think duster was scummy.

I am a strong player and major contibuter to this town. My lynch is bad for the town. Therefore, I defend myself when you attack me. By attacking me on the point "you claim to have never been suspicious of duster" you force me into defending it further. So claiming that I am going to too great lengths to defend it is a nulltell.

Anybody ask themselves why he couldn’t just simply say..”yeah I thought duster was scummy”?

Because it would be a lie.

Anybody ask themselves why he wants you to believe that he thought duster’s posts were scummy and his actions anti-town, but didn’t think duster himself was scum?

Because it's true.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

Here you are trying to say I said changing one’s mind is hypocritical. Which is either a misrepresentation or a lie. I never said that. You didn’t quote me in the post, but you are suggesting I said something I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO SAYING…I say misquote..but maybe it is a misrepresentation?..which is worse?

Misunderstanding is the proper word. In every post that I have misunderstood something you said I have either allowed you to reexplain your point so that I can respond properly, or explained how my interpretation was implied, from my point of view. So you can hardly call this a misrepresentation, as I'm allowing you to explain what you did mean. If my interpretation is incorrect, I feel to see how the fact that I changed my mind is relevant, except for your far out theories that I did it as part of some elaborate scum ploy.

G.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a

post

from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s

posts

are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".

So that is a whopping

8

misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).

Please address this…don’t just call it a misrepresentation.

The fact that it is a misrepresentation disproves your point. I said his POST was scummy, not posts. It is nowhere out of the normal to say one post by someone is scummy without thinking they are scummy.

LOL, I am not even addressing the appeals of to emotion points. They are ridiculous. Please tell me how sarcasm and angry posts = scum.

Yet another assumption of validity. *sigh*. Appeals to emotion are scummy because they are used to disprove an argument based on emotion as opposed to logic, as well as a way to skirt around the argument itself.

I haven’t retorted to why “lynching a townie is a good thing” because I thought it was elementary. You lynch someone when they are acting scummy, but could be town. You have stated and are pushing to have us believe that you thought duster was town…not town, that could be scum…but just town. That is scummy.

When did I say that I was certain that Duster was town. I said that it was statistically likely (in the absense of decent content) that he was town.

Just because I don’t go line by line when addressing your posts doesn’t mean points are dropped. That is too ridiculous. If you ask me a question, I will address it.

It's not that you werent going line by line. Its that you were ignoring key arguments that I was making, and simply repeating your own arguments. This isnt nitpicking, this is pointing out the way you blatantly ignored my key arguments.

The only thing is this whole case you MIGHT have a point about is the fact I didn’t address why I thought lynching a townie was a bad idea. I thought this was common knowledge.

Actually, you really havent responded to my main four points about why you are scummy. I explained appeal to emotion as well as ignored points, assumption of validity, and misrepresentations. These are all scummy for obvious reasons, and all good points. Your blanket statement in which you accept one point and not the others will not work here.

I think you are lying you say I misrepresenting you. You say I am ignoring points, but you have not asked questions. “Appeals to emotion” example are sad. Even if they are appeals of emotion how is that scummy?

You attacked less then half of my misrepresentation points well. Saying "these ones are the same" doesnt cut it. The appeals to emotion are scummy for reasons I outlined in my original case as well as here, and by other players. read.

Oh and look the second most scummiest person in the game (tinvision) agrees with you…good job.

Ad hominems are fun arent they. I forgot to point that out, but thats your second ad hom this game (the first was when you called my case- which you had yet to see- bad because I forgot who you replaced).

At any rate, we can keep going around in circles. I think you are scum…I think I caught you in your ruse. Now I am purposely misleading you?

You can't deny that you were willingly allowing the misinformation of another player to continue.

You were about ready to pose a case that I was scum based on your conjecture that I know he was town because he wasn’t one of my scum buddies.

If you thought this to be true, then you have seriously underestimated my playing ability. Also, wasn't this whole debate about how I don't decide someone is scum based on one action?! How the hell did you expect me to build a case on one post?

I wanted you to discredit yourself.

SCUMMY AS HELL! Why would you want me to discredit myself? To inflate a weak case, thats why! You could've easily just shot down that one point about you+duster, and it would have been a protown play, but you tried to turn it into something to destroy my credibility in the game, and ensure that I would never function as a useful part of the town again. It's ridiculous that you think this makes you protown.

Tell me, how am I NOT protown?

See above.

I think you are scum, I wanted to prove to this town how full of crap your cases are.

WHAT CASES? I hadn't written a case yet. You think that just because you're suspicious of me that what I say doesn't mean shit? Thats essentially what you're saying here.

I am attacking you because I think you are scum = protown.

Yet another misrepresentation. I'm not attacking you because you're attacking me. I'm attacking you for the way you're going about it, ignoring my arguments and attempting to publicly discredit me through continued misinformation. It's ridiculous, you could be lynched just on this if is this is how you treat players that you're suspicious of. Not to mention all the scummy behavior. Your lynch is definitely a good move today.

[curiouskarmadog]

sarcasm and angry posts, as you yourself called them, are indeed appeals to emotion. They are, rather than appealing to us to think, appealing to us to feel as you feel, that his attacks on you are ridiculous rather than appealing to us to think that his attacks are full of holes.

so you think my posts are scummy? his attacks are ridiculous...how can one argue an accuastion of "appealing to emotion" wihtout getting into WIFOM territory...



dont have the time right now to go line by line of seph's post..it will take me time to go through the wall of words..have a feeling when I do this it will just result into another wall of words which will turn into a pyramid of words and all my points are lost.

town if you think I am scum, lynch me..once you see my alignment you might rethink Seph and might look into my points (if you havent already)..

will try to tackle his post tomorrow...or the next day

[Sephiroth]

sarcasm and angry posts, as you yourself called them, are indeed appeals to emotion. They are, rather than appealing to us to think, appealing to us to feel as you feel, that his attacks on you are ridiculous rather than appealing to us to think that his attacks are full of holes.

so you think my posts are scummy? his attacks are ridiculous...how can one argue an accuastion of "appealing to emotion" wihtout getting into WIFOM territory...

Because there is clearly no motivation for town to use appeals to emotion, so there is no "well, maybe he's doing that so we think he's protown" factor. Please explain how appeal to emotion could possibly be wifom.