Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mykonian]

Hi springlullaby,

Unvote, Vote: vollkan

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

The post I reacted on. I thought this a weak post, because:
a. What is the purpose of this vote? She doesn't seem to be serious to attack Vollkan, and pressuring isn't going to work here.
b. She keeps the options open to choose Ecto, the other side of the discussion. Yet, why is Ecto scummy? She only follows Spyrex. Did you really think I would vote for someone just because that person had two suspects?

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

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 74

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (Spyrex)
ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 2 (mrfixij, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 1 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (orangepenguin, Mama_Ku

Juls

, TDC, mykonian

RealityFan

)

Also, I updated the vote count in the first post of page 4 to incorporate Mama_Ku. Juls's vote on orangepenguin no longer exists.

[vollkan]

Vollkan: How would a game look like where everyone was you? How would the first case develop if nobody started pushing weak cases to see where they'll go?
I can certainly envision 12 vollkans arguing about theory, but how would you ever move away from it?
I agree that it's in the best interest of the town to only follow good cases, but they don't just drop from the sky, do they?

No, a good case doesn't just drop from the sky - and I think the very play I have adopted in this game affirms that that is not my own view. By self-voting to create a controversy I am creating a basis for suspicions and so on to arise out of.

Why is Springlullaby following Spyrex (she says Ecto is scummy), but votes Vollkan?

QFT. Do you have some reason that we do not to decide that Vollkan and I are diametrically opposed in alignment? I see no reason that Vollkan and I could both be town, nor do I see a reason why it could not be proposed that we are both scum putting on an elaborate staged swordfight for town's benefit to distance ourselves from one another.

I agree with you here. Myk's point is illogical.

---I dont see the 'jumping on' event here. So what's next?

Here is where you jumped on:

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

Ecto, as I have stated repeatedly now, your initial question betrays that you assumed that the self-vote was somehow uniquely warranting of further justification (and your subsequent "case" against it shows just baseless that assumption was). It's "jumping on" because you were basically going against something based on nothing more than preconceptions, at best.

Now this is a jumping on post. Vollkan was waiting to pounce, probably on anyone who bothered asking him about his self-vote.

This would be, what, the fifth time you've said something like this?

Again, I have been clear that questioning the self-vote # scum. But, my expectation would be that anybody who questions the self-vote has some explanation as to why self-votes are so special as to warrant specific inquiry.

Read my first two statements again. I see no presumptions or prejudices evident at this point, yet Vollkan is giving the old as though I had?? This statement here was the first 'jumping on' and it certainly wasn't by Ectomancer.

Again, let's review:

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

You had no basis for thinking a self-vote to be special (as became manifest subsequently). You saw my question, carrying whatever prior ideas you had about the general perception of self-voting, and then tried to seek an explanation from me. I don't think that you actually took the time to consider my action and possible reasons for it (because your "inherently bad" remark showed you hadn't given any consideration to the question of utility)

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

Pretty much the same thing. You're demanding justification of me particularly.

And don't kid that you weren't relying on prejudice. The question "Why would you...." implies that there is something which needs to be justified. It holds that one set of behaviour is the accepted norm and that a deviation must be justified. That's prejudice.

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

...

...

So, basically, you have contrived one particular little narrative for Spyrex's behaviour which is entirely dependent upon me being protown. Assuming his motives without any basis is bad enough (why is it not equally valid to think he is just agreeing with me? Your assumption that he is buddying up is just a form of pseudo-OMGUS), but to basis that assumption on a further assumption as to MY alignment is simply absurd. This is simply just assertion and innuendo without any basis in evidence.

Unvote, Vote: Ectomancer

[mykonian]

First, I really don't see the big problem with Ecto's play. I think he has been quite reasonable. I don't think Vollkan could pull the breaks. After such a big discussion, where he keeps disagreeing with Ecto, his only option was to vote Ecto.

Vollkan, you disagree with that one sentence, and I know I should have posted it some other way. But do you also disagree with the explanation of that sentence?

[vollkan]

After such a big discussion, where he keeps disagreeing with Ecto, his only option was to vote Ecto.

Not true. At all. I can disagree with somebody and not vote them. I have not voted Ecto for disagreement; I have voted him particularly for his attack on Spyrex and for aspects of the way he has been arguing.

Vollkan, you disagree with that one sentence, and I know I should have posted it some other way. But do you also disagree with the explanation of that sentence?

No. She could plausibly find us both scummy.

[mykonian]

Let her post the reasons for it, not simply follow Spyrex in case there are not enough votes on you! She has just chosen the two persons that make this game now, that argue, and she does like she chooses a side, yet I don't know what to make of her vote against you (is it even serious). If the general opinion shifts against Ecto, she has kept all her options open, because she found Ecto scummy.

And about your vote against Ecto. I thought that from previous experience. Two townies had a big discussion day one, and it wasn't resolved. It determined the play throughout the day. I expected at least one vote from you or Ecto for the other.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 99

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mana_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (Spyrex)
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian

RealityFan

- 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 1 (vollkan)

vollkan - 2 (mrfixij, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (orangepenguin, Mama_Ku

Juls

, TDC, mykonian

RealityFan

)

Also, here's an Activity List:

(player's name) (player they are replacing, if applicable) (date and time of last post)

Mana_Ku (Juls) (Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:59 am)

orangepenguin (Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:02 pm)
ortolan (Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:37 am)
mykonian (RealityFan) (Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:07 pm)
springlullaby (Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:28 am)
Ectomancer (Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:22 pm)
vollkan (Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:58 pm)
SpyreX (Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:18 pm)
mrfixij (Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:19 pm)
TDC (Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:19 am)

Prodding Mana_Ku

[Ectomancer]

I'm not bothered by his vote. I didn't find him scummy for his actions, and my statement that his ego was driving some of his statements was sure to provoke some type of reaction.

Here is where you jumped on:

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

Ecto, as I have stated repeatedly now, your initial question betrays that you assumed that the self-vote was somehow uniquely warranting of further justification (and your subsequent "case" against it shows just baseless that assumption was). It's "jumping on" because you were basically going against something based on nothing more than preconceptions, at best.

You're the type that just has to be right aren't you? In this instance, you are not. At this point in time, you have no idea whether I have preconceptions or not from the way this question is phrased. I, in fact, went out of my way and stated a situation where I did something odd, that was still pro-town. If anything, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt to present a pro-town reason for your self vote, not 'jumping on you'. It was only later that I revealed that I dislike it.
This just reinforces my statement that you were waiting for someone, anyone, to mention your self-vote so that you could say "Ahah!"

On to disliking it, it's because we are the two primary participants in the discussion, yet there is no indication of alignment based upon which side of the debate we are on. The reason that I am not continuing to harp on the relative usefulness of an opening self-vote is twofold.
1: It belongs in Mafia Discussion, not in the middle of a game for pages on end.
2: Despite revealing little in the way of alignment of the baiter and the enabler, you can still gain insight into other players by the way they react to the situation.
Without us finding an actual case somewhere, your self-vote is still useless. Lucky for you, I've found fertile soil for a case that is at least indirectly related to your self-vote.
You are still a null tell despite your stubbornness.
My statements against Spyrex are valid ones, and enough for me to place for my vote, and I'd like him to answer to them

himself

and not by

you

.
You see, this is where that 'gut' thing comes in. Your gut doesn't like the way I've addressed your self-vote. My gut doesn't like what I'm seeing from Spyrex. As for your alignment? I've already stated where I stand on your alignment. What I dont know is whether Spyrex

does

know your alignment or not, and how he might react to being called out on something he very well may be doing. A vote reinforces it, adding

pressure

(dont care that you dont like pressure votes).


P.S. - read the "There is no OMGUS" thread to understand why the term "pseudo-OMGUS" certainly doesnt exist.

[TDC]

The post I reacted on. I thought this a weak post, because:
a. What is the purpose of this vote? She doesn't seem to be serious to attack Vollkan, and pressuring isn't going to work here.

How did you conclude that she wasn't serious (for page three standards) about it?

b. She keeps the options open to choose Ecto, the other side of the discussion. Yet, why is Ecto scummy? She only follows Spyrex. Did you really think I would vote for someone just because that person had two suspects?

But if she has two suspects, what's wrong about voting one and commenting about the other?

[SpyreX]

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of

why

the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

@Spyrex - Strongly? If you follow Vollkan's prosecution rules, then the onus is upon you to prove that opinion.
In point of fact, the actual events dispute that statement. I yielded to Vollkan's point rather easily, considering theory discussions to be a nice way to get things going, but something that belongs in the Mafia Discussion forum if you want to write pages and pages about it.

Why would I use the term strongly?

(Beware, herein lies a wall of quotes for the weak of heart)

Ok, doesnt this mean that there is no self voting? As soon as they reach L-1 (by anyone), their vote automatically drops off, meaning they cant be involved in lynching themselves in any way.
In other words, all this mechanic does is throw off the actual vote count if someone is voting themselves. Creates confusion is what it does. The enemy loves confusion.

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.

3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why its

crap

move from your own mouth.

The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"

It's a terrible springboard for provoking discussion because what you get is A: a player who could be town or scum self-voting (I find it to be about equal) and B: Anyone who questions the move could be either town or scum because self voting is anti-town play.
So you've created a wonderful WIFOM to kick off the game, that tells us no information about alignments. All you've done is given yourself a reason to feel self-important enough to make unjustifiably smug comments.

Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan.

Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind

)
Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".

P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.

First off, conversation in general is pro-town, but useless flummery is not. Having a major role in the conversation generated by your self-vote, I'd rather not consider it to be flummery. In doing so, I have to concede that in this case your self vote was not an anti-town move. There are many ways to generate a conversation, and this is as valid as any. Makes it a neutral tell.
Giving the "generating discussion" reason after your coy question to yourself was lame. LAME! But again, it did what you purport to be after, and so is also an acceptable response. Neutral tell.

I'll stick with this for this bit.

1.) Initially, before the storm even started you made a heavy implication: that a self-vote was by nature designed to sow confusion - and you say that only the enemy would want to cause confusion.
2.) This first set of replies, over and over, reads with a heavy implication that his motives are scummy.
--- You start out saying anti-town (which is negative in nature).
--- By calling his explanation (that it is for discussion) "crap" in the manner in which you did you are implying that he is "copping out" by saying its discussion and it truly is a "AHA" Gambit.
--- You then move directly into the "Its a gambit".
--- Accusations of WIFOM because this discussion doesn't directly prove alignments?
--- You are saying that his mentality (that proof should be required for a lynch) is a scum tactic.
--- You say it is an attempt to manipulate the town.

Now, that didn't bother me in and of itself - it was strong and actively confrontational in a way that I didn't like, but (OHH NO MORE BUDDYING WITH VOLK) I'm not one to vote on "I dont like it".

However...

3.) All of the above vanishes and it becomes a neutral-tell.

What? That drastic of a flip that quickly bothered me. Everything in two pointed to a strong "scum" vibe you had on Volkan - but no?

Hence I asked. Your first reply was "I wanted an answer" but the above really didn't jive with it.

So, I asked again... and saw a spiral of words ending in a vote for me.

(As an aside, I love how that post again paints Volk in a negative (scummy) manner yet the final is that I am scum and found a town-on-town fight to wedge myself in).

But, as it sits I just find this bizarre and moderately scummy. Before I get all hoss wild I would like you to give me specific questions you want answered (preferably that are within what has happened and not in the mystical context of

if you are scum you are doing this because

).

So, yes, nice and simple. Ask me questions you want answered or points I've made you'd like clarification on.

[mrfixij]

As per TDC's request, my thoughts on post 75, and an expansion of.

Prior to that post Spyre was fairly... lacking. He issued a compliment (in my opinion) to Voll and I for our neutrality in post 52, as follows a portion:

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion to both Voll and I, who being on opposite sides of a verbose debate from the start, would send a powerful message if we were to both agree with a decision/suspicion that Spyre would make. Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

Then in post 59, Spyre is commenting on the game, as opposed to the events therein. It's almost like a way to ward off a prod for inactivity, except Spyre is being plenty active.

62: Again pushing on Ecto for being aggressive. I don't know about Spyre, or the rest of you for that matter, but I prefer having at least one aggressive player to keep the game moving, as opposed to 10 semi-lurkers. I also think that it's not scummy to be aggressive. At the very least, it's not anti-town behavior. I'd rather a player take a strong point and stand behind it than only go halfway and back off before he is convinced of a player's town/scum status. Aside from that however, post 62 is rather inconsequential. His reference to "the razor" I presume to be Occam's Razor, but I fail to see its application and would like him to clarify what he meant by that.

64: Theory, establishing a conservative meta. Perhaps trying to give his vote more emphasis when it is cast non-randomly.

Post 75 is what I was initially asked about, before I decided that the rest of his recent posts deserved some analysis. Again, he continues an appeal to emotion/authority when he ambiguously flatters Vollkan from the start. The attempt at humor with a cowstorm was rather entertaining, but insubstantial. And he returns to a mention of the onus, which neither agrees nor disagrees with Vollkan, but discourages gut play and says that a lynch should require a solid case. As obvious as it is, I'm inclined to believe this statement to be incredibly slightly pro-town.

There is nothing remaining on page 4 of any real significance, save for this little tidbit at the end.

I can see the method to Volk's madness. Its not just pure theory at this point.

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

The part about ecto I like. I don't think Ecto's scummy at this point. Spyre does, and is pushing it. However, he's not planting his feet so to speak, so part of the pressure he's putting on Ecto is causing him to slide backwards himself. If his argument against Ecto so far was more solid, I'd refrain from saying that he's overusing appeals to emotion, gut instinct, and a small amount of craplogic.

Post 108 is where Spyre finally brings something to the table, and on initial inspection, I'm inclined to say it's good. He finally gets his feet secure and stops sliding backwards. As much as I dread using separate tabs to get my point across, I think I'm finally going to have to for this post.

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of

why

the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

I'm also failing to see how we can reflect on WHY the conversation went the way it did, seeing as how if we did so after N1, we would be using post-hoc logic, which only is valid under the invalid assumption that a suspect MUST be scum. It's playing a WIFOM game.

I also feel that all of Spyre's appeals to emotion are in a direct effort to establish a (false?) linking between him and Vollkan. As I said previously, he compliments both myself and Vollkan for our neutrality. Even if he claims to not realize it, I fail to see how it can be argued that he isn't buddying up to Vollkan, and to a lesser extent, me.

As for his point 1: Do you mean to tell me that prior to Vollkan's explanation you weren't confused? Because I sure as hell was. Point two/three seems to be a case of making a case out of something which is ultimately a null-tell. Spyre has a somewhat valid if confusing and circular point against Ecto here. There's been many times in which I have ceded a point because I realized that there was a fundamental flaw in my logic. I consider that not a scummy trait, but rather an honest one. Of course though, we cannot judge sincerity, so your point does stand, but I don't consider it to be a strong one.


As it is right now, I'm not convinced of Vollkan or Ecto's alignment. I AM, however, convinced that Spyre's case against Ecto is weak and rather unfounded up until recently, where even then it has holes. As a result, I would like to

unvote
vote: SpyreX

I don't like to face the possibility that a fellow Star Control 2 fan could be scum though (fanboy plug, lol)

[mrfixij]

Also, an additional point that I carelessly forgot to add into my vote, one part of post 52 REALLY irks me.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it

- ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

You may have been an outsider to that discussion, but you are an insider to this game. As town, not only the how but the what is crucial to all of your logical deductions. You don't know if there was a tiny scum slipup in that discussion, and from the bolded portion, it appears that you aren't concerned with that possibility. We've already said that scum go off gut feelings, you're saying in not so many words that you're reading through that discussion not to find evidence but to build a gut feeling.

[SpyreX]

Well, huh.

I expected something, but I wasn't really expecting this.

Allow me to retort, I guess.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion to both Voll and I, who being on opposite sides of a verbose debate from the start, would send a powerful message if we were to both agree with a decision/suspicion that Spyre would make. Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

Being neutral on an issue I have said I feel is a null tell is me appealing to emotion?

And yes, attacking what, again, I said is a neutral does bring up warning flares - because it does?

62: Again pushing on Ecto for being aggressive. I don't know about Spyre, or the rest of you for that matter, but I prefer having at least one aggressive player to keep the game moving, as opposed to 10 semi-lurkers. I also think that it's not scummy to be aggressive. At the very least, it's not anti-town behavior. I'd rather a player take a strong point and stand behind it than only go halfway and back off before he is convinced of a player's town/scum status. Aside from that however, post 62 is rather inconsequential. His reference to "the razor" I presume to be Occam's Razor, but I fail to see its application and would like him to clarify what he meant by that.

Where do I say anything about not liking aggressive players?

I said:

Its the style and choice of aggression. Honestly, its good for discussion but pigs will fly before a case based on self-voting is going to mean anything.

That level of aggression on something that, from his own mouth, is considered to be null just reeks of pushing for pushing's sake.

Its what he's chosen to push on. Its how he is pushing on it. Not inherently a part of being aggressive.

The razor? I said I found self-voting in the jokephase neutral. He asked why, I responded, he said what if, I said there are many what ifs but I'm going to go with the simplest solution (what I initially said).

The part about ecto I like. I don't think Ecto's scummy at this point. Spyre does, and is pushing it. However, he's not planting his feet so to speak, so part of the pressure he's putting on Ecto is causing him to slide backwards himself. If his argument against Ecto so far was more solid, I'd refrain from saying that he's overusing appeals to emotion, gut instinct, and a small amount of craplogic.

I'm pushing for a response because, get this, I find the pushing scummy but I haven't made up my mind on echo yet. I'm still coming to a decision on the whole matter.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

...What? I am saying if, based

solely on the different sides of the discussion thus far,

either player was lynched that would be poor, poor town play and yes, the town would well be on the road to losing.

I'm also failing to see how we can reflect on WHY the conversation went the way it did, seeing as how if we did so after N1, we would be using post-hoc logic, which only is valid under the invalid assumption that a suspect MUST be scum. It's playing a WIFOM game.

I'm talking about today still. Not "OMG they must be scum" or anything of that nature - just how this initial discussion impacts today (and the game) as a whole.

I also feel that all of Spyre's appeals to emotion are in a direct effort to establish a (false?) linking between him and Vollkan. As I said previously, he compliments both myself and Vollkan for our neutrality. Even if he claims to not realize it, I fail to see how it can be argued that he isn't buddying up to Vollkan, and to a lesser extent, me.

I'm gonna bold this and make this clear:

My link to Volkan is that I find his play in response to his null self-vote to be pro-town thus far. We are not buddies. I am not going to follow him blindly. I dont need him to be my best friend.

As for you? I said you were neutral in the discussion from an outside manner. Honestly, policy lynching on something like this would have been stupid and poor play. The fact you backed off gave me slightly town vibes.

As for his point 1: Do you mean to tell me that prior to Vollkan's explanation you weren't confused? Because I sure as hell was. Point two/three seems to be a case of making a case out of something which is ultimately a null-tell. Spyre has a somewhat valid if confusing and circular point against Ecto here. There's been many times in which I have ceded a point because I realized that there was a fundamental flaw in my logic. I consider that not a scummy trait, but rather an honest one. Of course though, we cannot judge sincerity, so your point does stand, but I don't consider it to be a strong one.

Confused about what?

I can go ahead and say I haven't been confused about anything that has happened. Its been pretty clear - I am trying to see what, if anything, can be found about the alignments because of it.

As it is right now, I'm not convinced of Vollkan or Ecto's alignment. I AM, however, convinced that Spyre's case against Ecto is weak and rather unfounded up until recently, where even then it has holes. As a result, I would like to

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet - I responded to his "what do you mean strongly". I dont have a concrete read on him. I find what has happened with the strong attack on the self-vote quickly turning to neutral very suspicious. So, yea, there's holes.

I'd like, again, maybe some bulleted lists and perhaps even questions. A good chunk of this is stuff I've obviously done but even in your explanation I'm not seeing how they are scummy. So, yes, give me something I can actually refute?

Ohh, preview edit:

You may have been an outsider to that discussion, but you are an insider to this game. As town, not only the how but the what is crucial to all of your logical deductions. You don't know if there was a tiny scum slipup in that discussion, and from the bolded portion, it appears that you aren't concerned with that possibility. We've already said that scum go off gut feelings, you're saying in not so many words that you're reading through that discussion not to find evidence but to build a gut feeling.

From the first read of that as a neutral third party (as in knowing NOTHING about any players alignments) the aggressive nature of Ecto's attacks I didn't like whereas I found your interaction to be neutral.

As for the "what" versus the "how" - I was trying to say I was looking at the goals of the discussion versus each word said: Ecto read as wanting a lynch, you read as wanting it on policy and Volk read as wanting to stir up discussion.

[vollkan]

You're the type that just has to be right aren't you? In this instance, you are not. At this point in time, you have no idea whether I have preconceptions or not from the way this question is phrased. I, in fact, went out of my way and stated a situation where I did something odd, that was still pro-town. If anything, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt to present a pro-town reason for your self vote, not 'jumping on you'. It was only later that I revealed that I dislike it.
This just reinforces my statement that you were waiting for someone, anyone, to mention your self-vote so that you could say "Ahah!"

If you didn't think that there was anything special about a self-vote, you would not have singled me out. You also used the "Why would you..." language. Those two combined give a fair inference of prejudice. We then only need look at your subssequent posts to augment this "inherently bad", "only the enemy likes confusion", etc.

And yes, I was waiting for somebody to do exactly what you did. So I could then have the discussion and judge their processes (and those of anybody else). It's wrong of you to say I was waiting to say "Ahah!". I didn't once accuse you of being scum simply for inquiring about the self-vote. I waited and looked at what you had to justify that sort of response. And even then, the straw that broke the camel's back was an atrocious vote by yourself for Spyrex.

On to disliking it, it's because we are the two primary participants in the discussion, yet there is no indication of alignment based upon which side of the debate we are on.

That's because the sides of the debate have nothing to do with alignment. As I have already said, sparking the controversy is an instrument used by me to see people's processes in argument in this game.

2: Despite revealing little in the way of alignment of the baiter and the enabler, you can still gain insight into other players by the way they react to the situation.

It's as revealing about the baiter and enabler as it is the reacters. How people relate to each other in response to the controversy is entirely game-relevant.

My statements against Spyrex are valid ones, and enough for me to place for my vote, and I'd like him to answer to them himself and not by you.

Why should I not shoot down craplogic when I think I see craplogic? I am not going to let a dodgy attack stand uncontested.

You see, this is where that 'gut' thing comes in. Your gut doesn't like the way I've addressed your self-vote. My gut doesn't like what I'm seeing from Spyrex

Close, but no cigar. I've given reasons in my criticisms of you. Your gut-based assumptions on Spyrex's motives cannot be compared to that.

As for your alignment? I've already stated where I stand on your alignment.

Uh yeah. Now, explain how that justifies making a case on Spyrex that assumes I am protown?

What I dont know is whether Spyrex does know your alignment or not, and how he might react to being called out on something he very well may be doing. A vote reinforces it, adding pressure (dont care that you dont like pressure votes).

Oh right You weren't really making a crap case but it was all an elaborate ruse to place pressure on him. That claim warrants serious skepticism, because, at this stage of the day, we cannot afford to just let people rely on the "for pressure" excuse.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion

Which is the appeal to emotion?

Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

You have my agreement on the warning flares point. He was distinguishing ecto for aggression, which is not scummy.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

Valid point.

[mykonian]

The post I reacted on. I thought this a weak post, because:
a. What is the purpose of this vote? She doesn't seem to be serious to attack Vollkan, and pressuring isn't going to work here.

How did you conclude that she wasn't serious (for page three standards) about it?

I thought this sentence:

I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

b. She keeps the options open to choose Ecto, the other side of the discussion. Yet, why is Ecto scummy? She only follows Spyrex. Did you really think I would vote for someone just because that person had two suspects?

But if she has two suspects, what's wrong about voting one and commenting about the other?

comments are ok, but why is she suspecting Ecto? She only keeps the option of following Spyrex in case Ecto gets into trouble.

and I have already said that this isn't a strong vote, it was just the best thing I could go on. The discussion between Ecto and Vollkan doesn't help me to determine allignment. Spyrex his vote wasn't so scummy to me. He basically does the same as I did, making a weak vote.

[springlullaby]

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me.

See my answer to it from another game:

Link removed:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role.

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

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

[vollkan]

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

You are entirely correct. My very tactic of self-voting relies on the fact that it will be controversial. If self-voting ever became the norm, the tactic (like any sort of ploy) would become entirely invalid.

It's wrong to judge play based on its effects "if everybody did it" because, quite simply, that inquiry doesn't relate to whether or not something is pro-town or anti-town in any given instance (this is analogous to the distinction between deontologism and utilitarianism).

There's no tension between believing that self-voting would be bad if everyone did it, and believing that self-voting can be good in any particular instant (as you say, by going against customary practice)

[mykonian]

@springlullaby: could you explain why you are voting Vollkan then?
could you also point out why your suspicious of Ecto (quote?)

I found your accusation of Ecto quite similar to that of Spyrex, only then in one sentence, just after you have voted Vollkan, and I think I don't understand why you voted him. And please, don't be irritated... I just want to know why you think people suspicious, because:

1. I should know about a good case, so I can vote too.
2. Scum have to lie about there reasons. The more scum lies, the easier to catch them.

I'm just suspicious of every suspicion without a reason. Like gut votes, or "I think Ecto is too aggressive" without any quotes, and explanation why it is scummy.

[SpyreX]

*sigh*

Its not being aggressive why I made the comment about Ecto. Its the topic and the method of the aggression. If it was a lie or if someone made a rediculous statement - sure. Going on, especially with the use of terms she used, about something I find as neutral but the general world would attack I find odd enough to warrant mention.

I'm pretty sure I've never voted for ecto? I think my OP vote is still up because well, it doesn't have a real home yet.

I've given a reason for my problems with ecto.

I never mentioned SL? I'm not sure why that one is @Volk and I?

[Ectomancer]

Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".
Without wading back for quotes, I believe both said something similar to:

"It wasn't what he did, it was

how

he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that

your gut

doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you

would

discount it if it were coming from someone else.


@Spyrex - You made an obvious error in 2 ways. First of all, you made my 2nd questioning of Vollkan as "Point 1", when anyone reading the game can see that it was not. My first two statements were deliberately neutrally phrased, just as they are, and both are important to

the early stage of this conversation

.
Your points 2 and 3 are from

after

Vollkan responded, responses that I didn't like, hence my strong responses. We

continue

to have disagreements over it.

What you are trying to do, as I accused Vollkan of doing, is create a timeloop to take my later responses and tie it back to the original questions concerning his self-vote. What is worse, you quoted me 3 times, and

removed Vollkan's responses

. Don't you think those responses provide the context to the statements you quoted? What use is your argument without context?

So your question of: "Why did you jump so strongly on Vollkan for his self-vote?'
Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his

subsequent

responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.

[SpyreX]

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it"

Thats not "you're bothering me and I dont know why" gut feelings. Thats the method of your attack gives me a scummy read of you because, honestly, I feel it was attacking for the sake of attacking. That is not gut.

@Spyrex - You made an obvious error in 2 ways. First of all, you made my 2nd questioning of Vollkan as "Point 1", when anyone reading the game can see that it was not. My first two statements were deliberately neutrally phrased, just as they are, and both are important to the early stage of this conversation.
Your points 2 and 3 are from after Vollkan responded, responses that I didn't like, hence my strong responses. We continue to have disagreements over it.

I didn't post "Why would you self vote" because thats a simple question. Before Volkan even answered the mod made his statment and your second set which is NOT neutral in nature (this, again, is before "discussion" started) set the tone for it. That post set the tone.

What you are trying to do, as I accused Vollkan of doing, is create a timeloop to take my later responses and tie it back to the original questions concerning his self-vote. What is worse, you quoted me 3 times, and removed Vollkan's responses. Don't you think those responses provide the context to the statements you quoted? What use is your argument without context?

Like I said, its the how. If people want to see the context they can read the 5 pages. I was giving my examples of what you did that I found to be suspect. I'm not creating a timeloop because since before Volk responded you came in with negative connotations and then they all vanished.

So your question of: "Why did you jump so strongly on Vollkan for his self-vote?'
Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his subsequent responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.

I still will hold to the initial "the enemy loves confusion" business implies a negative connotation and during the discussion there was a negative connotation.

Again, I'd like the list of what I've done thats scummy in a fashion I can respond to it.

[Ectomancer]

Oh I expected you to argue over what is "gut". No surprise there.

The enemy loves confusion statement still allowed Vollkan to give his original intention for his self-vote and gave my own opinion on the likelyhood of whether a self-vote would still be valid. The mods statement certainly narrowed the options for the original self-vote being a valid one. Giving my own interpretation of a mods ruling is hardly an attack on a player, especially when you allow the player in question an opportunity to address it.

I'll grab a quote of Vollkan's to address the rest of this:

Ecto #2 wrote:

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

Pretty much the same thing. You're demanding justification of me particularly.

And don't kid that you weren't relying on prejudice. The question "Why would you...." implies that there is something which needs to be justified. It holds that one set of behaviour is the accepted norm and that a deviation must be justified. That's prejudice.

Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans

original post on this topic.

. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkan

himself

is the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himself

in his own words

does not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.

As for your scummy moves Spyrex, as you say, its all in how you are doing it. If the 2nd post I made was the issue, then why did you label it as point 1, and then post 2 more quotes taken out of context without Vollkan's responses? It looks like you were simply trying to 'pad' your case (which I consider anti-town at the least, possibly straight out scummy). It took another response by me for you to cull your attack back to a specific part of a post you feel was negative. Why? Why did it take so many posts and refutations for you to finally find your real point?
I'll concede that the term 'the enemy loves confusion' could be taken by some as a negative connotation. It could also be taken in the manner I meant it, which was to 1: give my interpretation of the mods rules, and 2: warn against creating confusion in the game when confusion benefits scum.
Which brings us back to you and your actions. You spent pages arguing without bringing up the nugget that was central to your argument

and that nugget was on page 1

. That tells me (and my gut), that you were trying to inflate your position, forcing me to refute your points along the way, until finally you were backed into your last point of refuge in regards to your case.
Like we 3 have said, its how you are doing what you are doing that is scummy. And yes, that falls under a judgment call, and judgment calls are inherently a 'gut' decision because it isn't a logic decision.

My gut also tells me that you will complain that I gave you nothing to defend yourself against. Not true. I give you your entire course of play to defend yourself against. My sympathies go out to you that you created such a large mess to defend. You've moved way beyond being able to point out a phrase on page 1 that could, admittedly, be interpreted in 2 ways (or more). You should have gone for that right off the bat. Instead, you get to explain why it took 4 pages of accusations to finally fall back on it.

[vollkan]

Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."

Ecto, I am not simply posting for your benefit. I am not arguing against you to persuade you - I am doing so to show others the faults I see in your arguments against me (and now against Spyrex). I don't expect we will reach any sort of accord.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans original post on this topic.. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkan himself is the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himself in his own words does not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

[SpyreX]

Oh I expected you to argue over what is "gut". No surprise there.

Of course its not a surprise. You go "Your case is gut" and I say, "No, my case is because of these reasons." I'm glad your not surprised?

The enemy loves confusion statement still allowed Vollkan to give his original intention for his self-vote and gave my own opinion on the likelyhood of whether a self-vote would still be valid. The mods statement certainly narrowed the options for the original self-vote being a valid one. Giving my own interpretation of a mods ruling is hardly an attack on a player, especially when you allow the player in question an opportunity to address it.

The implication of "the enemy" sets a tone for it. It wasn't "this statement could be causing confusion" or "Your self vote is confusing"

It was: The enemy loves confusion after the implication that his voting himself was, in fact, confusing. Thus, he would be the enemy, no?

As for your scummy moves Spyrex, as you say, its all in how you are doing it. If the 2nd post I made was the issue, then why did you label it as point 1, and then post 2 more quotes taken out of context without Vollkan's responses? It looks like you were simply trying to 'pad' your case (which I consider anti-town at the least, possibly straight out scummy). It took another response by me for you to cull your attack back to a specific part of a post you feel was negative. Why? Why did it take so many posts and refutations for you to finally find your real point?

Ok, hold up a sec.

Your first post wasn't what made

me

start to wonder about you. Hence, it wasn't a point in my response of the question of "strongly" attacking.

How in the name of everything does my not putting Volkan's posts modify at all why I found

how you were attacking

suspicious?

As for padding..what? My last response had nothign to do with the other things I've said. You made this statement:

Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his subsequent responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.

My reply, was that the "ENEMY LOVES CONFUSION" is heavily negative in connotation and that occurs before any of the rest of the argument. That, in fact, your statement above is in my eyes totally false.

Which brings us back to you and your actions. You spent pages arguing without bringing up the nugget that was central to your argument and that nugget was on page 1. That tells me (and my gut), that you were trying to inflate your position, forcing me to refute your points along the way, until finally you were backed into your last point of refuge in regards to your case.

Thats not a nugget. That's part of a larger issue. My first statement about this would be the "nugget" - your large set of attacks that then vanished. The fact that you started this all out with "The enemy" is icing, nothing more.

My gut also tells me that you will complain that I gave you nothing to defend yourself against. Not true. I give you your entire course of play to defend yourself against. My sympathies go out to you that you created such a large mess to defend. You've moved way beyond being able to point out a phrase on page 1 that could, admittedly, be interpreted in 2 ways (or more). You should have gone for that right off the bat. Instead, you get to explain why it took 4 pages of accusations to finally fall back on it.

I'm am glad I have your sympathies. WOE IS ME FOR THIS ATTACK IS SO STRONG NONE COULD STAND AGAINST IT.

I haven't fell back on anything. I'd love you to show me where I fell back on anything.

I'll try to summarize why you are saying I'm scummy since it is apparent that this is to be an impossible task for you to clarify (hmm, what could the reasons for that be).

1.) The 2nd post you made was my first point, not the first.
2.) I took your statements out of context.
3.) I culled my attack back to a specific point.
--- That point could easily be interpreted multiple ways and was on page one.
----- If that is the main point, why didn't I start with it?
4.) I am inflating my position on you by adding in other details.
5.) I am using "gut" for this attack and yet condemning you for it.

(If I missed any big points, let me know. Honestly, I can't really pull anything else out of it).

Allow me to give you a simple rebuttal as well as the above.
1.) Your 2nd post was

MY

first point because I personally dont care as much about the 1st (Why would you) as the fact you painted it instantly as part of "the enemies" arsenal.
2.) I didn't attempt to hide context. Its there if they want to see it but the point I was making was in your words

themselves

. The method of the attack as it were.
3.) I didn't "back off" my attack.
--- Everything else I have mentioned is still suspicious.
--- They are all part of the large pie of your play I dont like.
------ What you are saying is my "main" point is in fact a minor one.
--------- If you hadn't said that statement but did the other things I would still be very suspicious. If you hadn't done the latter and just said "THE ENEMY" then I wouldn't be as suspicious.
4.) I am not inflating my position. See above.
5.) Taking all of the things you've done together and finding them suspicious != 'gut'.

But, this exchange is enough for me to toss the vote. (Please, ohh please, let someone scream OMGUS)

Unvote, Vote: Ecto

This isn't just stupid townie business above. This is malicious and designed to push forward a weak lynch. This just makes me further feel that the whole "pushing for pushing" was designed with the exact same thing in mind.

[Ectomancer]

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

Because it was prefaced by, "So to repeat your question to yourself" of COURSE I'm going to use your turn of phrase in asking the question. I left out "on Earth" because it was unnecessary and could be construed as mocking, and not my intention. Once I stated that I was going to ask of you your own question, the language is going to be yours.
So yes, basing your prejudices upon that turn of phrase is mistaken if you think it originated with me. It was an echo of yourself that you heard.

[mykonian]

Man, massive posts! I admit they scare me.

But here I go.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

I can see the words hollow rhetoric as gut. Maybe you don´t feel that way, but it seems you are talking between each other, because:

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

You could see the first sentence as playing by "gut". Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with this one, but it isn't like Ecto is completely unreasonable like some people say.

The implication of "the enemy" sets a tone for it. It wasn't "this statement could be causing confusion" or "Your self vote is confusing"

It was: The enemy loves confusion after the implication that his voting himself was, in fact, confusing. Thus, he would be the enemy, no?

Could you explain to me what the big point is here? It seems to come back a few times, but I don't see the relevance to a scum player.

After a whole post of "I am right and you are not", Spyrex votes, warning us not to call it OMGUS.

Why not? The whole post screams "OMG ECTO YOU SUCK". Why can't we scream back? Your attack on Ecto wasn't bad after your play, but you don't want to say, that all you posted there proved that Ecto is scum?