888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[Igor Schultz]

vote: gerhard.

for:
meta fishing in a game where it seems to be illegal (and thus I will not answer btw). And for posting no real content (which I will start trying to do when I don't have to work from dawn till after 11 o'clock).

[Emile Buchard]

Okay, it's later. Here's some more:

It was close between two people....while I hate twilight and new moon references, and wish to vote for the one who made them, someone else deserves my vote more:

vote:Jaime Marcelle

For using a dice to determine your RVS vote to avoid responsibility for your actions.

Dice = anti-town

Otto was the one who started the whole dice deal. While you could make the argument that it was just as random as the other votes, he still gains some scum points.

@Otto, was your vote on Jaime just another random vote, or was there a real reason for it?

Why do I gain scum points? Think about this for a second:

I gave a reason that was just as valid as any other RVS vote reason, and if you deny this, you are a hypocrite.

I am not scum for bringing this up. Two things in the RVS that will get you policy votes are self votes and dice rolls for ways of voting. When I saw Jaime roll dice for his vote, I took the policy vote stand, as for the most part it is scum who do it to avoid vote responsibility. If anything, one of those who agreed with me and/or joined the BW is scum [if Jaime isn't scum] I made the stand, and the fact that others supported my stand either implies that I was right [not earning mr scum points but rather town points], or there are opportunistic scum with me.

What do you have to say now?

Oh, and good to know who Chaco is now lol

Fine. -scum points for your reasons. + scum points for not answering the question. Now you're back where you started. Happy now?[/joking]

Seriously, those scum points are really minute, kind of temp actually. Right now, I don't know why you did that, and what you did let to a long discussion that just led us in circles. Explain, why did you vote for Jaime?

[Otto Ulbreicht]

I already did answer your question. Read my post again, and you'll see that I explained that it was a policy vote. Also, you can't blame me for anything in your prev post either. I simply initiated the discussion, while it was you guys that sent it in circles.

[Jaime Marcelle]

Sry I wasn't on much yesterday but I'm really busy so i have to make this post short.

vote Emile Buchard

Sigh... Please explain your votes before you put them on please. Why are you voting stuart? Smells like scum is not a good excuse. I have no idea what the heck you are doing.

Also, I agree with Emile about the meta thingy. Metaing is not really scummy. And while it does help town more then scum the rules say not to so yeah.

[Tracey Morris]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and baseless voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

[Leon Dreyfus]

@Leon, why were you asking those questions about the RVS?

Because, it is a method to get us out of RVS and see what the others think of it presently.

Lesson of the Day

Do not post from an iPhone in a game using alternate accounts.

[malthusis]

I am giving Tracey a warning for posting his account name in his post. He is very lucky I am not force-replacing him right now for what he did. He has been warned, so if he does even one more offense, I am replacing him.

[Gerhard Krause]

Sorry about that. I wasn't thinking about that rule, I was random questioning, which I like better than random voting. I find meta very helpful, but obviously I'll be more conscious of the specifics of the game and not ask for it again. It wasn't really meta I was after though, I wanted to get an idea of how experienced a player you are, which is also something I find helpful.

However, Igor, why in god's name are you listing lack of real content as a reason for voting me? We've only barely made it out of the RVS, and your posts are far from brimming with content either.

This feels like opportunistic alien scum, but I like my vote where it is better.

[Jaime Marcelle]

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of his random vote out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

[Spencer Remmington]

Whyte Smells like serious scum. He pushed crap logic in an argument a back on page two. Sure, the argument went nowhere, but that's only because people didn't take it anywhere.

The whole "Smells like scum" bit does nothing to convince me that he should not be voted for right now.

[Andrew Lemarchand]

Unvote: Igor Schultz
Vote: Edward Smilie

Edward, please answer the questions about your essentially self-voting plan.

Spencer, what crap logic argument are you referring to and why is it crap?

[Stuart Whyte]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Whyte Smells like serious scum. He pushed crap logic in an argument a back on page two. Sure, the argument went nowhere, but that's only because people didn't take it anywhere.

The whole "Smells like scum" bit does nothing to convince me that he should not be voted for right now.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

[Jaime Marcelle]

What... The ... hell?

:sighgs at Stuart:

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Because the reason you are voting them is because they "Smell like scum". You give no reason why they smell like scum or anything. Seriously, if you vote someone give a goddamned reason! Why do they smell like scum?

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

I cannot prove your vote is random but since you give no reason other then "smells like scum" I am going to have to say it is.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

Since your so into this let's do it. Please prove that your reason isn't crap logic.

Seriously though, insted of telling the town to prove they are right. Why don't you prove that we are wrong. Try defending yourself. I think my mind is made up. I am going to

vote: Stuart Whyte

[Jaime Marcelle]

EBWOP: Forgot to unvote

Unvote: Claude Lefevre
Vote:Stuart Whyte

[Tracey Morris]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Well, in your post you only voted, and gave no justifications. Then, when asked about your vote, you said, "he smells like scum," again, without any justification. So does he literally smell like scum? Or has he been behaving in a scummy way? I have no clue because

you have provided no basis

for your vote.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Bolded emphasis mine.

You once again provided no justification, even when specifically asked. It appears pretty arbitrary to me, and I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't arbitrary.

[Emile Buchard]

I already did answer your question. Read my post again, and you'll see that I explained that it was a policy vote. Also, you can't blame me for anything in your prev post either. I simply initiated the discussion, while it was you guys that sent it in circles.

True, the scum are most likely the people who furthered the discussion. Still, do you believe that using a dice as a reason for a random vote is scummy?

Because, it is a method to get us out of RVS and see what the others think of it presently.

Well, whether that was your intention or not, it worked. In truth, the scum are probably not the ones who started the discussion, but the ones who went along with it. I bet that there's at least one scum among those who responded to the RVS thing without furthering the game.

[Emile Buchard]

Okay, I've re-read, and the people who seemed to try and further the discussion without furthering the game are, in no particular order:

Stuart Whyte

The idea is that just because you claim to vote for that reason doesn't mean its all there was to it. There are underlying decisions that scum have to make. ie: Whether to vote for each other or not. When you remove all decision making it removes the point of the RVS. How do you expect the game to move forward if everyone only random voted?

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

Stating his opinion on the RVS without actually furthering the game. Seems as if he just wants to keep talking about the RVS. Later he votes for me and gives no reason for it.

Andrew Lemarchand

I don't think using dice for RVS is inherently scummy nor is it something that I view as policy lynch worthy, but it does allow people to hide behind the dice. Is it significant that people voted based on Twilight or because someone was named Igor? No, but they did have to decide who to vote for. There's really not much to be gained from this information not but it's still important because scum have to choose whether to vote for their buddies or not.

Again, just posting his opinion on the dice/RVS without voting or otherwise trying to further the game.

Igor Schultz

LEON. Are you saying that people think they know who is scummy before they first post? and that every vote has good logical reasons this early in the game? Thus you are impling that we are all supper cops have esp, and never vote in RV. RVS is to start an early band wagon not to toss real votes on scummers around. However the scum will most likly not vote for one of their buddys, but other then that rvs votes are as good as that.

Again, stating opinions on the RVS without trying to make the game go along.

We need to get some info going, as emile is saying this has nothing to do with the game. Some person votes any one that they like in RVS be it real RV or because they have an urge. It does not matter. We need to get the game going. It is a bit too early to make a real reead yet...

(When the question of how we have usefull discussion was posed)start a wagon like in most games... That most of the time gets the game ball rolling.

Stating that we need to get some info without actually trying to get info. Scum points here.

Jaime also really helped the "discussion to nowhere", but he was defending himself, so it's understandable that he would post a lot. Leon started the whole thing, but it sounds more like a town attept to get info. If he was scum, then his plan seriously back-fired.

I'll get some more up later.

[Spencer Remmington]

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Burden of proof fallacy. This is crap logic. The burden of proof falls onto you, anyway, since it's your vote. Proof to us that it's not baseless.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

This isn't even logic. This is just childish argument. I even have proof with me:

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

You said this, in response to this:

[...] eventually someone would gain the courage to put a serious vote up and end the RVS on someone that put down a scummy RVS.

You bolded the entire quoted part. He said, that eventually someone will either put down a serious or a scummy random vote, and you shot it down by saying if everyone "random" votes, there is technically no Scummy random vote. Not only did that only undermine half of what he said, but it's really just another childish "No it isn't" argument in disguise.

your play so far this game is basically just eveyrone arguing with you chiming in and saying "No it isn't. Nu-uhh!" Every once in a while.

people who choose not to, or in your case

refuse

to provide reasoning are scum AND anti-town. Please die.

Unvote, CONFIRM vote: Stuart Whyte

[Claude Lefevre]

A smart scum would never post an empty argumentation such as "he smells like scum". On the other hand, a scum who is overconfident in a new starting wagon *could* make the mistake of a baseless vote.

In my opinion there is not so much about Stuart Whyte.

@Edward: would you please explain your "plan"? Why would you ask everyone to vote for you? A prolonged silence on this matter will cause me to vote you.

[Tracey Morris]

A smart scum would never post an empty argumentation such as "he smells like scum". On the other hand, a scum who is overconfident in a new starting wagon *could* make the mistake of a baseless vote.

Sure, but a smart townsperson would never defend a weak vote by asking others to prove it is wrong, especially when the vote is so obviously weak.

[Jaime Marcelle]

Emile- You state all these people who you think are scummy but who do you find the most scummy out of those?

Sure, but a smart townsperson would never defend a weak vote by asking others to prove it is wrong, especially when the vote is so obviously weak.

I agree. If he is a townie he's just hurting us. Town has no reason to not give any reasoning about their already bad vote while scum does. And honestly stewart do you really think you're going to get anywhere by asking people to prove that your vote isn't baseless whether or not you actually have a base or not?

[malthusis]

*sigh* I just realized that Edward hasn't given me his password yet. If he is replaced (which will happen in 24 hours) a new account is going to be made for the replacement.

[Stuart Whyte]

What... The ... hell?

:sighgs at Stuart:

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Because the reason you are voting them is because they "Smell like scum". You give no reason why they smell like scum or anything. Seriously, if you vote someone give a goddamned reason! Why do they smell like scum?

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

I cannot prove your vote is random but since you give no reason other then "smells like scum" I am going to have to say it is.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

Since your so into this let's do it. Please prove that your reason isn't crap logic.

Seriously though, insted of telling the town to prove they are right. Why don't you prove that we are wrong. Try defending yourself. I think my mind is made up. I am going to

vote: Stuart Whyte

So a couple key points to touch on. You have no way of knowing that my vote is baseless or random/arbitrary. You cant think it all you want, you can even be quite sure of it, and you can vote me because of it, but please dont assert it as a fact </3. Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Well, in your post you only voted, and gave no justifications. Then, when asked about your vote, you said, "he smells like scum," again, without any justification. So does he literally smell like scum? Or has he been behaving in a scummy way? I have no clue because

you have provided no basis

for your vote.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Bolded emphasis mine.

You once again provided no justification, even when specifically asked. It appears pretty arbitrary to me, and I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't arbitrary.

If I was asserting that it wasn't arbitrary the burden of proof would be with me, but all I'm asserting is that you have no way of knowing whether it was arbitrary, baseless, or random. If you said you thought I had no base for my vote and voted me for it I would have taken little issue, mind you I still dislike being voted for bad reasons but, at least you wouldn't have been asserting something as truth that you had no way of knowing one way or another.

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Burden of proof fallacy. This is crap logic. The burden of proof falls onto you, anyway, since it's your vote. Proof to us that it's not baseless.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

This isn't even logic. This is just childish argument. I even have proof with me:

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

You said this, in response to this:

[...] eventually someone would gain the courage to put a serious vote up and end the RVS on someone that put down a scummy RVS.

You bolded the entire quoted part. He said, that eventually someone will either put down a serious or a scummy random vote, and you shot it down by saying if everyone "random" votes, there is technically no Scummy random vote. Not only did that only undermine half of what he said, but it's really just another childish "No it isn't" argument in disguise.

your play so far this game is basically just eveyrone arguing with you chiming in and saying "No it isn't. Nu-uhh!" Every once in a while.

people who choose not to, or in your case

refuse

to provide reasoning are scum AND anti-town. Please die.

Unvote, CONFIRM vote: Stuart Whyte

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch. And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument. As I see it undermining part of that argument "that there is a scummy random stage vote" undermines the whole argument as there is no vote for a person to take as scummy and vote seriously. More importantly if he admits its possible to have a scummy random stage vote otherwise, don't you see an issue with him skipping the whole thing? At this point I'll note that I also didn't random vote but thats because there was actual meat to the thread by the time I posted. As for the "no it isn't" point, I honestly don't no how to argue against it because I don't even understand it. I mean, I did provide a reason behind that argument and the entire basis behind his "no it isn't" point is that I'm not providing any reasons so yeah, colour me confused.


Sorry for any typos/spelling mistakes folks, too lazy to reread this.

[Tracey Morris]

If I was asserting that it wasn't arbitrary the burden of proof would be with me, but all I'm asserting is that you have no way of knowing whether it was arbitrary, baseless, or random. If you said you thought I had no base for my vote and voted me for it I would have taken little issue, mind you I still dislike being voted for bad reasons but, at least you wouldn't have been asserting something as truth that you had no way of knowing one way or another.

Um... okay...

Unvote: Stuart Whyte

Stuart - you appear to be voting with no apparent basis for that vote. As such, I am going to vote for you until you make it apparent that there was a basis for your vote. Additionally, until you fail to prove to me that my new vote is based on bad reasoning, it shall also remain.

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

This whole idea is so ludicrous it makes me sick. So you are suggesting that we should all just keep voting for unknown, alleged good reasons, but not back up our claims until we reach a majority? The point of explaining your vote is to also get other people to hear your discussion points, and if it was a valid vote, then others can either agree with you or have that information noted.

So, since I disagree with your outrageous claim that votes should not be justified, I will tell you exactly why I am voting for you. I am voting for you because:

1. You appear to be voting with no apparent basis for that vote;
   
2. You have no concern with providing town information about your thought processes or your feelings for the game (scummy to the n-th degree); and,
   
3. Your opinion on explaining votes is 100% anti-town and is more beneficial to scum.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

Also, while we are on it, answer questions that are asked of you.

Why do they smell like scum?

And, I realize now that my posts weren't followed by question marks, but I thought it was fairly obvious as to my intentions; but, if it wasn't, here are some questions to you, Stuart Whyte, that I want you to answer.

Why did you vote for Emilie?

Why do you want to talk about semantics and epistemology instead of just explaining your vote? And you can't say that explaining your vote is anti-town, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

[Gerhard Krause]

@Stuart White - It seems your whole argument boils down to "Just because I didn't post my reasons doesn't mean I don't have them," which is fine. More power to you.

Vote: Stuart White

until you do decide to explain your vote. Is that unreasonable?