Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Idiotking]

/confirm

[Idiotking]

Vote Ojanen

for being the first to be the second to vote for someone...?

[Idiotking]

Oh, dear. I hadn't noticed!

unvote

ing in shame.

[Idiotking]

Idiotking: Hmm. So you didn't consider the reasoning behind your vote to be still very deep in the random kingdom?

It was a random vote, nothing more, nothing less.

[Idiotking]

Ok. Just why did you unvote me then? Vote for arbitrary reason minus the arbitrary reason equals almost the same as what you began with.

Because I had made a mistake in thinking that you were the first to be the second to vote for someone. Realizing my mistake after being called out for it, I rescinded my vote and went to cry into my pillow while listening to Linkin Park.

[Idiotking]

Eh, so what? And why not revote?

I don't see what purpose that would serve, really. The random voting stage is the most annoying part of this game. But if I must, then

vote Jase

It's a random vote, why should I bother coming up with a fake excuse?

[Idiotking]

Trying to please? Trying to blend in? HAHAHA!!!!

Personally I'd rather not have a random voting stage at ALL. But then without one the discussion is either slow in coming or doesn't come. So because we HAVE to have one (barring any other fancy ideas to get the discussion going) and because if I abstain from random voting I'll get called out on it.

But this is fine, really, we've got quasi-discussion now, right? Let's get the ball rolling. Somebody start questioning me already!

[Idiotking]

Guilty conscience, HA! again. I HA! at you.

[Idiotking]

Address it? How do you answer the question "Do you have a guilty conscience?" when the answer, regardless of your alignment (especially this early in a game) is always going to be "no"? No, then. It's an answer that means absolutely nothing.

And "going along with the flow" is meaningless this early in the game, again. Ok, I won't "go with the flow". OH CRAP! I get it. By resisting this "flow" you mention, I follow a completely different "flow" you devised. You say I shouldn't go with the flow. Is it all right, then, to NOT go with the flow if the act of NOT going with the flow is going to, essentially, force me to do exactly as you want by specifically NOT going with the flow?

Yeah, by the way, I know the above doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you look at it from my perspective. A lot of my posts will be like that. I'll go ahead and apologize beforehand.



OK, so. Try and understand this: I hate random voting. With an undying, ridiculously malevolent passion. I know I have to random vote, however. By not doing it, I cause a problem in that has to be resolved though logic when NO logic has any grounds yet. I.E. the creation of the problem itself is the only "act" to refer to, and as such, means unless the problem is removed, leads to a lot of aimless discussion that causes even more problems.

In my experience, random voting is necessary for REAL discussion to take place. So I "go with the flow" to avoid the aforementioned problem. I will, however, immediately stop as soon as something real happens. Something real has happened, so I am quite done now. Natural impulse is screaming for me to start calling X scum and say that he's trying to get me in trouble on baseless evidence. Again, though, that's natural impulse, there's no reasoning behind it. I'm going to go ahead and assume that witchhunting is kind of required when there's no evidence, and I just pulled the short straw with my Wiccan magicks.

Oh, and I lolled when X said "That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far." Of course it is, WE'RE ON PAGE THREE.

[Idiotking]

Could you at least explain why you hate it?

The only explanation I can offer is that it has absolutely no logic behind it. Hence the "random" part. It just... I dunno. It's frustrating to me. I'd probably be much better replacing in to games, but those also leave me feeling unfulfilled. So, since I have to bite the bullet one way or the other, I chose to suffer random voting this time around.

QFT.

That said, did anyone's response to this seem scummy to you?

Well, not everybody's responded yet, but Lleu's responses annoy me a little bit. It's like he's trying to get me to answer nonexistent questions or force obvious or common knowledge answers out of me. A lot of people dislike random voting, this can't be the first time he heard of such a dislike.

[Idiotking]

So you'd rather I hadn't defended myself, then? Just let the thing slide?

[Idiotking]

No. I expressed myself badly here. We need to talk, I really don't like the stereotype that defending yourself is scummy.
I was just referring to your line in the original vote message: "It's a random vote, why should I bother coming up with a fake excuse?".

Oh. That wasn't the original vote message. I voted, then unvoted, then re-voted when someone told me to random vote. So I did to avoid the problem we have apparently run into anyway. The absolute FIRST vote I made had a "real" random vote reason. The second was just for the sake of random voting, as requested.

Hmm, X put Idiotking in a Catch 22 to see if he would squirm. Idiotking immediately says X is trying to get him in trouble on baseless claims instead of seeing the point was to see his reaction.

At this point its enough for me to unvote, VOTE idiotking

Um... no? Actually read what I said. I said that was NATURAL IMPULSE. I also said I would assume that he did that to start the discussion, which worked. Did you honestly just read what you wanted to?

No, or course not. Its just that as Cubarey says you do seem to squirm (overreact) a bit in your defense.

I don't think CUBAREY said anything worthwhile, actually. I didn't squirm. It's a normal thing for me to put down my thoughts in my posts like that. I said it was natural impulse. This was true. This is what makes for OMGUS votes. Note, I did not OMGUS vote. Nor will I. Not just because X didn't vote for me, but because I assumed he was trying to get the discussion going. It succeeded, and so I move on.

[Idiotking]

Okay I have some issues with this statement. Firstly, you said that "someone" said you should random vote. If you are *really* interested in scum hunting...shouldn't you take the time to figure out who told you what? How else are you going to find scum other than by analyzing what people say to one another?

But I will make your job easy for you this time and point out *I* was the one who raised that question. Secondly, I asked you WHY YOU DIDN'T REVOTE...I did not say you SHOULD randomly revote. You never answered my question; you simply made up some random vote. This not answering the question seems odd to me...so:

unvote; fos: idiotking

Ah, my apologies. The reason I didn't revote was simply because it didn't cross my mind. I was busy and had to go somewhere, thus I unvoted real quick so my improperly-placed random vote (improperly placed because even my fake "reasoning" for voting was off the mark) wouldn't remain an eyesore. It was merely human error, if you must see error in it at all.


And I agree with you when you say:

"If you are *really* interested in scum hunting...shouldn't you take the time to figure out who told you what? How else are you going to find scum other than by analyzing what people say to one another?"

However, again, discussion hadn't started yet and I'm no good at getting it started (unless I'm the one examined, of course). And again, I have said this before and I'll say it again: I revoted to avoid the problem of a lot of aimless discussion as to WHY I did not revote. Clearly I have failed in this endeavor. Nevertheless, to me it does not matter who tells me what during the RVS. The fact was that SOMEONE, admittedly you if you say it was you, pointed out that error, and so I strove to amend it. I attempted to fix the problem, failed, and here we are, drifting along in that discussion I was so anxious about. Oh well.

[Idiotking]

The natural impulse would be to find fault in those who find fault in you. I can hardly believe that you believe me to be scum over the phrasing of ONE SINGLE QUOTE. Do you have any other "evidence"?

Of course he wasn't accusing me, it's too early in the game for that (oh, wait,

you

are accusing me, right?). I say it was NATURAL IMPULSE. Have you never heard of OMGUS? Do you not think townies are capable of it? Oh, wait, I didn't OMGUS. I think you're grasping at straws here, to be honest, and calling me "a Mafioso" after you made only two posts regarding a single statement I made is somewhat frightening.

[Idiotking]

unvote

I don't think Jase has done anything to deserve the vote thusfar, so I'll remove it. CUBAREY and Wall-E, I'm looking at you two. I don't think Wall-E's lack of posting is scummy, just lazy, but that doesn't change the fact that it looks bad. CUBAREY, I'd like for you to better explain your standing toward me. Do you have any further evidence? Or rather, any evidence at all? Why so few posts before calling me scum? Hmm? Answer me or I'll end up voting for you, because really, grasping at straws like that is pretty suspicious.

[Idiotking]

It's not necessarily that I'm paranoid (well, I am a little bit). It's that I find it difficult to express my thoughts in a concise manner. I'm not charismatic at all. So I ramble and say whatever comes to mind first, hence the "natural response" statement. If anything, THAT's what you have a problem with.

[Idiotking]

It's the weekend. Little time.

Not to mention the fact that any questions I would have had in response would have been the exact same questions as before, which he has yet to answer adequately.

[Idiotking]

Ok, weekend's basically over. Thank God, I hate prom night. So, Mafia time.

I basically agree with the sentiment that CUBAREY was overzealous, but not necessarily scummy. It could equally be said I was overzealous in my defense (and HAS been said).

I don't see anything scummy from X, but it's little unsettling to me that he seems to be clinging to me a bit, subtly defending me. Or I might be wrong about that. However, it's possible that he's preemptively connecting himself to me so that, if in the future he suddenly seems scummy, we'll both go down in flames. I'm probably reading way too much into that, though. Still, I like to state possibilities. It keeps me from being bored.

I don't have any scum vibes from anyone in particular, to be honest, but Wall-E's strange posting behavior's a bit annoying.

And I'd like to see a few people post more. Jase, Quints, Lleu, burfy, Wall-E, I'm talking to you. You're not all lurking, but it's bloody hard to get a good read when you're not posting very much.

[Idiotking]

Doublepost, my apologies.

I'm still here I'll post my thoughts later.

Can we have an update? Seems a little bit has happened in the last two days. Also, could everybody who hasn't lately post their thoughts? Grammar, I hate you. Very, very much.

[Idiotking]

you say you don't have any scummy vibes from anyone...okay, fine, maybe scummy is too strong of a word. Have you seen anything which you at least find probative?

Probative? Dunno what that means. SLIGHTLY scummy? Suspicious? Iffy? Yeah, I've seen a little bit of that, from X, Wall-E, and our non-posters, as previously stated. I don't like X's clingyness, nor Wall-E's apparent lack of interest in the game, and some people just aren't posting enough.

[Idiotking]

Seriously, I agree with yellowbunny. What's your opinion on everyone?

[Idiotking]

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Wait, what? Ok, so why are you voting for me, in your own words? Have absolutely NONE of the developments since post 56 mattered to you?

[Idiotking]

unvote

just in case, and

vote Wall-E

What are you trying to do, get yourself killed?

[Idiotking]

Wall-E's apology satisfied me ever so slightly, but I still have doubts. For example, Wall-E, what are your current thoughts on everyone? Do you have any?

[Idiotking]

Was prodded.

If hedging is what you say it is, qwints, a quick check of my posts in the only other game I've actually played on this site will tell you that I personally have to hedge. My whole concept of this game is based on possibilities, and because of that I can't ever be sure that I'm right. And I completely sucked in the other game I've played here, so call it self-paranoia if you want, I don't trust myself.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Define flip-out, please.

Oh, and could you make up your mind on what you're after, Wall-E? You seem to just be jumping after whoever's a target at the moment (mostly me). Cubarey was after me, so you went after me. Once I wasn't the main focus anymore, you unvoted and still haven't adequately explained WHY you voted in the first place. Now you're dragging up old, OLD posts and trying to make an argument out of them? Haven't I said anything 'scummy' since page 4? If so, why haven't you brought it up yet? If not, why are you trying to make a case against me on such crappy 'evidence?'

[Idiotking]

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

[Idiotking]

Hows about, what case? Huh? You say it was a flip out. Ok, that means absolutely nothing to me. I'm a very twitchy guy, very, VERY twitchy. Again, look at my other posts. It goes hand in hand with my hedging, as qwints calls it. You can't make up your mind on what you want, though. You've shifted, switched, swapped your viewpoints to whatever seems to be sticking at the moment. It's so impossibly scummy that I can't imagine why we haven't lynched you yet.

Oh,

unvote

vote Wall-E

Just in case I wasn't voting for you already. That would have looked really sad if a vote count turned up and I wasn't voting for you

[Idiotking]

In a sense, it can be old. If it was explained a long time ago, and there hasn't been any evidence (or at least, presented evidence) since, then it's old to me. Meaningless. Again, I ask how it's possible for absolutely nothing relevant to have happened since page 4 or so. Has NOTHING happened since then?

And I never said I wouldn't vote in RVS, just that I hated doing so. Didn't you read my statements concerning it, Sajin?

[Idiotking]

Disagree that stating my hatred of RVS hurts information flow. Look, we've got about 10 pages of discussion out of my voiced hatred. Even if it's not pro-me, and even if I get lynched, the argument will still have served a purpose. Information can be gained from it. I think it was worth it.

[Idiotking]

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.



Hero, could you expand your argument against me, please? My point was basically this: Wall-E only goes after those who are under suspicion anyway. I was under suspicion (by CUBAREY in particular), Wall-E voted for me once he finally decided to show up (I assume he wasn't paying much attention to what was going on, and picked me as a target because I was most visible and being examined). He also was after X, who was similarly under suspicion (you state yourself that X was getting "some flak"). Then, when Wall-E himself starts looking pathetically scummy, he suddenly apologizes and unvotes. Then, a relatively short time later, he votes for me again, using the logic (or lack of it?) he had for originally voting for me, apparently. My question is this: Why, according to his argument, has nothing relevant been said in so long? Why did he unvote me in the first place? Why did he apologize and then promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally? WHY? I have yet to hear an even tolerable answer, much less a good one.

[Idiotking]

Ok, so you may be right about not buying the explanation. Nevertheless, I don't buy the fact that from Wall-E's argument nothing's stuck out as scummy since page 4.

What means absolutely nothing to me is his term "flip out". If anything, he's had more "flip outs" than I have thusfar. That may or may not be relevant, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I also admit to hedging, yes, but here's the thing. I've been pretty consistent with my opinions thusfar, I think. My hedging is mostly for details and future possibilities. I believe Wall-E is scum. That is fact to me. No hedging. Wall-E cannot seem to decide who is scummy and who is not. His on again/off again votes for me show this. I don't think that's a contradiction. Though I could be wrong

I didn't attack X. I haven't attacked you or qwints, who have shown suspicion of me. All I'm after is Wall-E at the moment. Why? Because I think he's scum, and has YET to answer my arguments against him. Scumhunting is good, yes, wonderful. But I'm not overly good at it unless I'm directly under fire in the first place. I find Wall-E to be scum, or completely insane. Either way, I think he deserves to be lynched today.

[Idiotking]

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

[Idiotking]

I HAVE. You really need to read my posts from time to time.

[Idiotking]

Don't bother. It's not there. Your rhetoric continues to pile up with nary a quote nor discernable reference to argue against, leaving me holding this empty bag.

Feel free to bus your partner back later.

lol... ok. I'll just copy the most important post numbers, since you can't seem to be capable of rereading much of the thread.

Bottom of 315
Bottom of 312

And a dozen other mentions. Reread pages 8/9 and explain pretty much everything you said there. Posts 206 and 207 are interesting in particular, and your lack of response to post 208 is really PATHETIC.

And your arrogance is pretty annoying, too. You say I'm spewing rhetoric. But you haven't answered anything I've said. Or anything anybody else has said. Why are you not defending yourself? Don't you realize you're under fire from more people than little ol' me?


Oh, and in response to 322: lol. I know my limits as a player. Since I know my limits I avoid going beyond them. If I'm in a situation where I'm against scum who are so good they don't slip up after days of arguing, I'm out of my league, and any input I have to the game is worthless. I KNOW my limits.

[Idiotking]

And ever blathering, ever redundant, the broken record goes on.......

WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??

[Idiotking]

I hate it when people's expectations of me are more than I can deliver. I recently lost a very long-running game and essentially sucked from start to finish. So I'd like for people's opinions of my skill to be very, very low. On the plus side, I have been known to unleash random bouts of complete game-winning awesomeness. But none of those have been on this site yet, and the game I lost on here was the first I've ever lost. So my skills apparently aren't up to snuff for this site yet.

[Idiotking]

I know I wasn't under CUBAREY's suspicion for the time being. Which is why I don't believe Wall-E was paying attention to what was going on in the thread. My theory is that he was lurking so horrifically that he thought if he didn't do something, he'd be drawn out and lynched. So he looked for a target. He saw me as the only target readily available. If I remember correctly, he didn't even acknowledge my responses to others' questioning of me. Which tells me he wasn't really reading the thread at the time.

Basically, I had been under Cubarey's eye, Wall-E only got that far in the thread, thought it was worth biting, bit, was chastised by the town as a group, pulled back, apologized, hid, then figured I was a good target again once suspicion turned away from him and back on me to a minimal degree.

And he still hasn't even tried to disprove my opinions of him yet, or even really admit that I have any.

[Idiotking]

And bussing means this:

If you're mafia, and you have a scumbuddy who's under fire, you can vote/lynch/kill your scumbuddy to make YOU look less scummy.

[Idiotking]

I absolutely love Hero v. yellowbunny. Very cutthroat, very nice. Absolutely nothing to add to it, but just wanted to say it's beautiful.

And I would like to ask, if CUBAREY is at risk of getting replaced by someone more active, why are you voting for him now instead of waiting for his replacement to defend himself, Hero?

[Idiotking]

Hero, I'd like to stress a point here. If CUBAREY's replaced, his replacement can't defend CUBAREY's actions. If you replace someone you can't adequately defend their actions simply because you don't know what went on in their heads when they did what they did. Without the replacement knowing CUBAREY's thought processes, true defense is impossible; it's a wasted vote if we don't get a good read on the replacement.

[Idiotking]

And assuming that you expect CUBAREY to become active again and defend himself, since he already has votes on him, I don't think yours is enough to turn the tide. Why don't you vote for someone who is active and therefore can actively defend himself?

[Idiotking]

What responses will CUBAREY's replacement have? CUBAREY could have just done a poor job for all we know. We honestly can't tell, if he is indeed going to be replaced. It's early enough in the game to where I'd like to give his replacement a good looking-at before I consider voting for him. If CUBAREY does turn up eventually and doesn't get replaced, his lurking will be yet another scumtell, and I'll be more inclined to agree with you. but for now, I think voting for him is poor judgement.

[Idiotking]

Of course you don't see me bugging Jase or Kreriov about their votes. You're the one under pressure, why are you feeling victimized? I saw yellowbunny poking you, I decided to help a little bit and see if you got angry. You're getting defensive at the very least. It's kind of funny, actually, in a completely non-sadistic way.

And yes, we're supposed to vote for who we think is scummiest, but if it were that simple the game wouldn't be fun at all. You have to have a strategy in mind; even if you don't think someone is the scummiest, you could still vote for them on the off chance that the person you're voting for CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF BECAUSE HE'S GETTING REPLACED (assuming he's actually getting replaced, of course). What good does your vote do? More importantly, what good WILL your vote do when the replacement arrives? None whatsoever, the replacement will have no reaction at all because HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING SCUMMY YET BECAUSE HE JUST SHOWED UP. If CUBAREY were here to defend himself, I'd be on your side. He's not. So basically your punishing his replacement before his replacement even arrives yet, for something that is beyond the replacement's control. I don't see any good that can come of it.

[Idiotking]

When I said "on the off chance that the person you're voting for" I meant the person you're currently voting for, and the person you don't think is the scummiest is the person you switch your vote to.

I don't think my explanation is worded well either, come to think of it. Hmm. Posting phail.

[Idiotking]

Maybe this is better:

"even if you don't think someone is the scummiest, you could still switch your vote to them on the off chance that the person you're currently voting for CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF BECAUSE HE'S GETTING REPLACED"

[Idiotking]

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Ok, so if the replacement has votes on him, he'll be inclined to defend himself. HOW CAN HE DEFEND HIMSELF IF HE PERSONALLY HASN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG? Again, you want an answer to CUBAREY's actions. If CUBAREY is replaced, those answers will not be forthcoming. As I've said, it is impossible for him to defend himself if he hasn't done anything wrong, and it's impossible for him to defend CUBAREY because he doesn't know what went on in CUBAREY's head prior to replacement.

[Idiotking]

As far as I know, defending yourself is defending yourself, simple. Being defensive, though, is what leads to OMGUS. It's snapping at those who snap at you, being overly touchy of the smallest slight, etc.


And for CUBAREY's replacement thing, agreed. That's enough to satisfy me.

[Idiotking]

Just said it in the post above yours.

[Idiotking]

No, you didn't, but you were getting a little touchy.

"I don't see you bugging Jase or Kreriov about their votes. He's not in any danger of getting lynched right now. I thought we were supposed to vote on who we thought was scummiest, amirite? I don't understand why you're trying so hard to defend him. "

[Idiotking]

I think you are arguing semantics like a scummy scummer.

Yes, because my definition of "being defensive" is different from yours, I'm scum

See, Wall-E, THAT's why I'm voting for you.

[Idiotking]

And you're taking me seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Idiotking]

I don't see why not.

Wall-E's actually trying to make something of my sarcasm. He's thinking I'm being SERIOUS when I say that's why I'm voting for him. I find that amusing. You don't honestly think I'd vote for you over semantics, do you, Wall-E?

[Idiotking]

I thought the was sufficient...

[Idiotking]

Oh look, Wall-E sits up on his high horse of mafia skill

See what I did there? Sarcasm.



Wall-E, honestly? You have an even worse case against Hero than you do against me. Come on, show some effort at the very least. You rarely if ever post anything of real substance.

[Idiotking]

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT YOU WERE BEING SERIOUS ABOUT THE MEANING OF A COMMONLY USED PHRASE, NOT EVEN A MAFIA-RELATED ONE, AND ARE TRYING TO CALL ME OUT ON IT.



Just sayin'.

[Idiotking]

Your post was so incredibly substantial that you broke the... wait, you already used that one, didn't you? Hmph.

[Idiotking]

IK, it seems you REALLY want to lynch Wall-E and therefor attack Hero I guess with the intent to get him to switch to Wall-E? I find Wall-E suspicious for many reasons, but is there any reason to lynch him right now? We do not have a deadline, we have people who are still lurking, and we have another viable suspect with concrete scummy actions, not just poor posting or suspicious activity. I will unvote and will not support a lynch of Cubarey without him or a replacement getting an opportunity to post. Is it not prudent to wait for this before lynching Wall-E as well, no matter how scummy you find him?

it is never fun to put a game into a holding pattern waiting for one person. However, among other things, Cubarey clearly tried to fabricate a case against X and got caught.

I wasn't attacking Hero with an intent to switch him to Wall-E. I agree, CUBAREY hasn't looked good thusfar. But considering the fact that he may very well be replaced soon, my argument was more against Hero's reasoning. I did read a little defensiveness on Hero's part, but as you've said, I can't be the one to point fingers on that.



And Wall-E, seriously. You're taking posts which obviously aren't meant to be taken seriously and blowing them way out of purportion.

HEY, EVERYBODY! I'M SCUMMY MC.SCUMMINGTON! JUST LOOK AT MY AVATAR!

^^^Waiting for you to take the above statement, which is clearly a joke, and try and turn it into a "slip".

[Idiotking]

That said, your attitude is not one I appreciate. When I make a fallacious statement, the response I would like to see is a well-reasoned refutation, not child-like sarcasm or ad hominem.

I honestly don't care if you dislike my attitude. I hate yours, it seems arrogant and pretentious. So let's agree to disagree on that, hmm?

You want a well-reasoned refutation for what? You think I make slips by being sarcastic? You think sarcasm is a scumtell? Well, I apologize then. I just find it impossible to take you seriously anymore. You are grasping for straws so pathetically that I'm surprised we haven't killed you yet. Rather amazed, actually.

Your continued failure to take me and this game seriously is only going to drive my proverbial foot up your joking anus, to use a colloquial phrase.

Oh, I'm taking this game quite seriously. Just not you.

[Idiotking]

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me. But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we? This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh? You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them. It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

[Idiotking]

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

[Idiotking]

How is what I said on page 15 suspicious? I think I accomplished quite a bit, at least with Hero.

[Idiotking]

This post makes page 15 even MORE suspicious.

Waiting for someone to elaborate... I fail to get what either of you mean.

[Idiotking]

Oh, and Sajin. Quit with the obvious lurking. Lots of others are lurking, too, but you've posted at least once a day, showing you ARE available daily, so no excuses. You haven't posted anything truly substantial since the 15th, and even THEN it wasn't ridiculously so.

[Idiotking]

Forming a question about how suspicious you look is something a townie would never do. Why would you be concerned enough to ask everyone a question about it....unless you were scum.

Forming a question about how suspicious I look? No, the question was about how I looked suspicious. I wanted to know in detail WHY he thought I was being suspicious. Asking for someone's reasoning against you isn't scummy. If it was, defending yourself would be impossible. I don't think I really need to defend myself for page 15, but on the off chance that I'm wrong, I wanted his reasoning. And now, I want yours, too.

[Idiotking]

If memory serves, Wall-E already claimed vanilla.

[Idiotking]

Ok... what?

His roleclaiming vanilla means absolutely nothing. At all. Ever. Scum claim vanilla so nobody will counterclaim. Townies with power roles claim vanilla so they don't look like they have power roles. Townies who are vanilla roleclaim power roles so scum will go after them instead of people who REALLY have power roles. Just because you lie in your claim doesn't mean you're automatically scum. But that's not the issue here.

I agree that Wall-E is a good target today. But I don't agree with your reasoning. Is that ALL you have to say about him?

[Idiotking]

On the matter of your question IK, why would you not ask for clarification or say why a lot of pro town stuff was accomplished on said page? It just rubbed off on me the wrong way because of the manner.

"How is what I said on page 15 suspicious?"

Isn't that asking for clarification?

[Idiotking]

Ok, do you think Hero should have kept his vote on CUBAREY, then? Do you have any particular reason as to WHY I was wrong? And do you have anything to say about page 14? Or any page other than 15, for that matter? Are you interested in scumhunting at all, or are you just going to state suspicions after days of lurking?

[Idiotking]

Cuz, you know, you didn't post from the 14th until today. That's 5 days. 6 pages. And the most you can come up with on your return is:

Nothing substantive.

Ik's spew on page 15 makes him more suspicious to me. That's a lot of posting with little accomplished which is anti-town.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia. I also don't like his claim that tunneling = scum in 396.

Right now I'm fine with a wall-e lynch. IK is probably the second most suspicious over the last stretch. A couple of posts from Krevriov and yellowbunny made me a little suspicious (282 and 393 respectively), but not enough to do much about.

I wrote this without reviewing my previous long post, so I'm sure somebody slipped off the radar.

Now I maybe I could buy the fact that you could only post on weekends, or you were sick, or something like that. Maybe. But if that were true, you'd probably have come up with something better than "Nothing substantive" when you got back.

Not to mention, the only other game I've seen you play, you were scum and lurked like crazy. Just like now, really.


So I want is some answers from you, please. And yes, I know this is being defensive, but darnit, qwints, you've been flying under the radar for way, way, way too long. You, burfey, Sajin, Jase, all of you.

[Idiotking]

My questions aren't purely reactionary. Lots of people have gone after me thusfar, but I only stuck to the ones I found interesting. You are lurking and aren't showing sufficient signs of scumhunting. Same with qwints. Wall-E's... Wall-E. You three have questioned me, yes, pressured me. But you're also suspicious, whether the others agree with me or not.

I will be the first to admit I'm a poor scumhunter. But at least I try. I will also be the first to admit I'm defensive. But at least I know the distinction. My question is, why are you posting decently now, but weren't doing so this past week?

[Idiotking]

I don't think I should have to interrogate you to get you to scumhunt. And I disagree; the more info we get on D1 the more info we can use on D2, regardless of absolutely everything else.

@Wall-E:
Waiting for you to answer EVERYONE's questions. Hypocrite.

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess. But Sajin and qwints haven't tried to explain why they're lurking. Jase and burfey have the same problem. And I'm pretty sure there's at least one scum hiding out amongst the four of them. Simple numbers tell me that, and considering lurking is naturally scummy behavior, they're giving me plenty of ammo.

[Idiotking]

Note that you don't address anything at all.

[Idiotking]

Or you're taking advantage of it to toss suspicion at your attackers.

Your logic astounds me, Holmes. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. No, seriously. Considering they're not really attacking me, just suspicious. They're not voting for me. I'm not voting for them. Odds are, we won't vote for each other today. So yeah, real OMGUS going on here.

And saying any 4 people in the game could be scum doesn't mean anything unless they're all lurking, which can be a scumtell. And agreed, lurking is rampant on this site, but just because it is doesn't mean it isn't scummy.

[Idiotking]

Go ahead and end it if you want, Hero. It's not my business if you do. But if you will wait a bit, I want to watch Wall-E squirm and beg for a few more minutes.

[Idiotking]

Looks more like

you're

going to die.

I just want one thing, Wall-E. Before we kill you, could you at least answer everyone's questions about you? Cuz, you know, as far as I can tell, everybody wants answers from you. Everybody. Not just me. Every single player here has expressed suspicion of you, at least as far as I remember. If not, then at the very least, all of them want to hear what exactly you think you're doing.

So tell us, Wall-E. Answer our questions. And don't even ask for us to show you where they are; they've been asked repeatedly.

[Idiotking]

Maybe. If your answers are decent. Until I actually get those answers, I'll

unvote

But if I don't get them in 24 hours, or if they're not sufficient to remove my suspicion (and I honestly doubt they will be), I'm going to replace my vote and make sure you don't get a third chance.

[Idiotking]

From what I can tell it looks like Jase is willing to accept scrutiny for his lurking, as long as everyone else who was lurking is also scrutinized. That's rather responsible of him. It's a town tell, I think. But then again, he could go into this knowing that it's a town tell, and be using it to diffuse our annoyance of his lurking-ness. But then he might know that I'd think that, so he wouldn't actually do it if he were scum... gah!

Is that what WIFOM is?

[Idiotking]

Maybe. If your answers are decent. Until I actually get those answers, I'll

unvote

But if I don't get them in 24 hours, or if they're not sufficient to remove my suspicion (and I honestly doubt they will be), I'm going to replace my vote and make sure you don't get a third chance.

Not good enough.

First, outline your own perspective of the events in the thread in such a way as to explain away my points against you. When you've done that, find every question you claim I have not answered and put them into a single post to back your claim that I have not been answering questions to a degree deserving of a vote. When you've done that, I'll know you deserve what you've been screaming for for the last three pages and I will answer every single one of said questions (presuming none of them are rhetorical or unhelpful in other ways, such as someone asking me who I think looks most town).

Ok.

Vote Wall-E

I give you a chance to defend yourself and you fail. Epically. Do you not see the need to defend yourself? Do you honestly think we're going to let you live just because you're you? We will KILL you, Wall-E. You will DIE. If you refuse to defend yourself then you're basically resigning yourself to that fact.

(Oh, and btw: LOOK UP YOUR OWN BLOODY QUESTIONS, YOU PATHETIC IDIOT. I'M NOT YOUR MANSERVANT. STOP BEING A LAZY BUM AND DO SOME HOMEWORK!!!!!!!!!!)

Exclamation marks added for emphasis.

[Idiotking]

Or, you know what? You list your "points" against me again, in full, with all your reasoning, and I'll do the dumb thing and look up your questions for you. And then after I beat you to death with your own stupidity, I'll hang your carcass anyway.

[Idiotking]

@Wall-E,

You completely ignored my post 331.
I asked some questions in the end.

Putting the strings together:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
You did not remember why you voted, but did remember why you unvoted?

Oh...I see. Wall-E...I'm a GIRL. When you kept saying "he" I thought you were referring to IK, so that's a large part of why I was confused. But reading the "he" parts to be directed towards me...your post makes more sense now.

Anyway, one rather large hole in your argument:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS.

Would be a interesting theory...unfortunately, it never happened.

The vote you are referring to is a figment of your imagination.

I voted Llue as a joke in the RVS stage (for being an Euler groupie), FOSed Kre for not liking peeps, FOSed IK for not revoting (something which many ppl thought was a bit scummy), voted for you while you were AWOL, unvoted when you returned, and then revoted for you when I felt your behavior warranted it, and there it lived until I switched it to Hero.

Regarding:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.

That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

I'm sorry, but your whole argument isn't very logical to me. After your apology post, can you provide examples of me tunneling on you? And before it...well, you have admitted yourself that your behavior wasn't exactly pro-town. Its not wrong in a game of mafia to go after someone who is showing anti-town behavior.

This made me lol irl. Many of Wall-e's posts seem to have decided that IK is scum, and are thrashing about frantically to find some scum...any scum...that will fit.

And this progression, IMO, is hilarious:

@Wall-e: You completely did not respond to my post 410. Me pointing out that you MADE UP A VOTE isn't something you should ignore. I do not know if you made it up on purpose or on accident, and I also realize that even if you did it on purpose you would say its on accident so you don't have to point that out. However, some sort of response is appropriate. Also I am waiting for your response to my tunneling question.

Your imaginary vote post makes me want to vote for you again, and the ***ONLY*** thing keeping me from doing so is that you are so close to a lynch.

Are you denying early-game suspicion on IK on your part?

As his only response to YB, and then follows it with:

IK remains dismissive. His anger grants him some town points, but not enough for me to pull my vote off him.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now, he's incontrovertibly misrepresenting the facts

twice

here, which is pretty often compared to normal D1 discussion. I can't be certain that this is not an honest mistake, but it bothers me. And he still hasn't responded to my whole counterargument to his case against me. I really hope that your next post addresses this.

Hey guess what? It's up to you to convince me that I would be hurting us tremendously, which you haven't fucking shown any interest in.

Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.

You have other leads. Your vote is currently on Hero. You find X scummy. You find me scummy. You find Cubarey scummy (although he is awol so you are probably prudent in leaving that one alone til a replacement is found). Why not follow up on Hero, X, and myself? There are certainly enough open questions there.

Regarding the claim...you at at L-1. I've never had to claim personally (as I mentioned, my mafia experience is still pretty limited)...but if you are town and you think it will help your case...maybe you should? Your behavior overall hasn't been very pro-town, but if you are just a not very effective townie I have no desire to lynch you.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia.

I think that's one of those things where it is better to assume it is true.

And ever blathering, ever redundant, the broken record goes on.......

WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??

YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED TO, ACKNOWLEDGED, EXPLAINED, OR NOTICED

ANY

OF THIS.

Now defend yourself.

[Idiotking]

And for the record, no, most of these aren't questions. They shouldn't have to be. People are wondering what you're up to, Wall-E. This involves DEFENDING yourself. You know why you got so many votes on you? Hmm? More votes than I do, more votes than X does, more votes than yellowbunny does, more votes than Jase does, more votes than qwints does, and the list goes on and on? BECAUSE WE AREN'T AS SCUMMY AS YOU. Defend yourself, or die.

[Idiotking]

Jase, here's a question for you. What are your opinions on everything that's happened since page 10 or so? In detail.

[Idiotking]

Jase, here's a question for you. What are your opinions on everything that's happened since page 10 or so? In detail.

At-a-glance...I think there's been a lot of question, acusations, etc. that have been ignored, and not just by Wall-E. Though I can't help but wonder why you're asking me this now.

Well, you asked us to pressure you. And in detail.

[Idiotking]

I have kindly done as he asked by presenting a wallpost of things he needs to address. I'm waiting for him to respond in kind, as I requested. I'll be civil. We can do this as gentlemen. Until I hang him.

[Idiotking]

Ok. Wall-E. You fail. Your defense is so pathetically hollow that it's sickening.

If you've got anything else to say, fine. Do as I ask and list your arguments against me as I have against you. But as far as I'm concerned, this day is over. I'm just waiting for someone to hammer and put an end to this nightmare.

[Idiotking]

So you were never really interested in what I had to say, since you were going to vote me regardless then? Or did you want to formulate some questions from the crappy hodge-podge of random posts tossing accusations at me you assembled when I called your bluff?

Oh, I was interested. You don't understand that when you're on the chopping block every single thing you do has to have a reason, and a damn good one at that. And if you don't understand that, no amount of goading on my part will force you to defend yourself. So I do the smart thing and just accept the fact that you won't or can't, and kill you. It's as simple as that.

Now gather up your "case" so I can blow it to pieces and hammer the final nail in your coffin.

[Idiotking]

Why the hesitancy? Why not just do it?

As soon as the nonvoters get on, I will.

I also would like to point out your hesitation at presenting your argument against me. Are you admitting that you don't have one?

[Idiotking]

No hesitancy. After I'm dead the case will still be there, waiting for someone to find it.

Congrats on basically admitting that you don't have a case at all. I would feel sorry for you, but it'd be wasted emotion.

[Idiotking]

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court. It's been all over you since the beginning. Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it. I do what I do as experimentation. Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things? If you didn't, why did you even bother asking? Was it a rhetorical question? Or did you not quote the question?

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

Here is the problem with what you are doing.

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't.

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Ok... HAVEN'T I ALREADY DONE THIS? LIKE, VERY VERY VERY RECENTLY? Or are you dismissing it? Because that's exactly what you seem to be doing for every one of my significant posts. You say you rely on a sane town to derail you. I honestly question your experience and skill at this game if you think you have to have that to prove you wrong.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

Explain to me how it's utter nonsense. And obviously it didn't hurt the town at all, I'm not the main one under fire here. And for those suspicious of me, not a one is suspicious of the RVS issue.

Wall-E. This entire case is insubstantial and quibbling over trivial issues that don't matter. Not slips that people missed, not elaborate scumhunting. Trivial. Stuff. Doesn't. Matter. I was honestly hoping you'd have something better for me, considering you've been harping on about you're "case" for days now. This is yet another disappointment.




Qwints. Come on, I already told you that excuse isn't enough. You should have already evaluated when you first returned to the thread, but you didn't. I had a huge paper due Friday too (really) but I was online often enough.

[Idiotking]

I don't exactly think I can respond to Hero's statement against me without it turning into another WIFOM situation. Hero, how would you say I've been acting scummy, in detail? Or point me to a place where you already have; I may have missed it.

[Idiotking]

@Wall-E

Point 1: You claimed to quickly.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Respond to this, then.

[Idiotking]

Apparently this "rhetoric" stems from prior events. We've already said we're not going to babysit you. And we've pointed out pretty much every time you did those things, when you did them, so it's not like this "rhetoric" is foundationless. You're going to have to do some work, too.

I find it funny, though, that you said I did something that was genuinely anti-town in all possible scenarios, because it would make the town pay attention to me, while you yourself are making the town pay attention to you because you're dismissing everything we have to say as rhetoric. Pot calling the kettle black?

[Idiotking]

Ok... when did I build a case against myself? When did I say, "Oh look, not voting in RVS is scummy! Let's lynch Idiotking!" You're letting the town build an impossibly solid case against you, and you're not even acknowledging that there IS one.


And stop selecting what you're going to answer to. Respond to this:

Apparently this "rhetoric" stems from prior events. We've already said we're not going to babysit you. And we've pointed out pretty much every time you did those things, when you did them, so it's not like this "rhetoric" is foundationless. You're going to have to do some work, too.

And Kreriov's list of points against you.

[Idiotking]

From Webster, then.



"Main Entry:
rhet·o·ric Listen to the pronunciation of rhetoric
Pronunciation:
\ˈre-tə-rik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhētorikē, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhētorikos of an orator, from rhētōr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak — more at word
Date:
14th century

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion 2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language3: verbal communication : discourse"

[Idiotking]

Missed IK's post:

I don't exactly think I can respond to Hero's statement against me without it turning into another WIFOM situation. Hero, how would you say I've been acting scummy, in detail? Or point me to a place where you already have; I may have missed it.

As disappointing as this may sound, I'm just getting really bad vibes from all of your posts. I'm not too fond of your style of attacking Wall-E, and you're "holier than thou"(ie. the(not exact quote) YOU KNOW WHY? CUZ WE AIN'T AS SCUMMY AS YOU, BITCH!) attitude kind of pisses me off. Like I said before, you're doing the same thing I accused Wall-E of doing on page 12. Acting like you're so frustrated when someone suspects you to help ensure everyone there's no other way than you being town.

Holier than thou? Nice. But no, I have no doubt that I'm a poor player. Then again, that's not the issue you bring up; you bring up my style, my way of speech?

I'm not acting. I really am frustrated, because of Wall-E's obsession with dodging questions/statements and his absolute refusal to actually look stuff up for himself. I don't care that he finds me suspicious, at least not any more than one would usually care. Same goes for you and everybody else who's shown suspicion of me. At least you guys can actually be reasoned with. At least you guys can actually respond to what I'm saying.

And what do you have to say about Wall-E's attitude, hmm? Thinking he knows everything, acting like the cock-of-the-walk and basically above all of us. Am I the only one who sees his posts as dripping with arrogance and "I know I'm right because I think I am?"

[Idiotking]

I've already gone through Wall-E's attitude. In short: I think he's been a douchebag. But I believe his Asperger's claim and think it might be due to that.

If it's true that he has Asperger's, then he should know that many of the things he does will look scummy, and therefore should be better prepared to defend himself (or at least, WILLING).

If it's not true that he has Asperger's, then he damn well doesn't have any right to say he does.

Either way, claiming to have Asperger's, in my opinion, has absolutely no relevance to anything in this game. It's possible he's telling the truth, it's equally possible that he's lying and using it as a smokescreen. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done (though the first time on this site). And really, should his condition give us any reason to show him leniency? What is scummy is scummy, and shouldn't be explained away by anything other than game-related information. Of course, that's my theory, and I'm going to stick to it.

[Idiotking]

(That said, the only things I know about Asperger's comes from Wikipedia)

[Idiotking]

So you'd rather give someone a free pass, and say "it's OK if you're scummy, because you have Asperger's?" Because if he's been town and acts scummy because of Asperger's, then that's essentially what you're saying we should do.

And I have SEEN people lie about such conditions. They get a good laugh after game-over, having thoroughly convinced the town that they're schizophrenic or autistic or any number of other things. Not a one on this site yet, but this is my second full game to play here to thusfar.

I also said I wasn't going to assume he's lying. I said I wouldn't factor in his claim at ALL. If you're asking me to let scummy things slip by because of a medical condition, I absolutely, unconditionally refuse to.

I have absolutely no opinion on whether he's lying or not. I don't care if he is or isn't; his real life condition is none of my business. So the best thing for me to do is to stick to what is visible in the game itself.

[Idiotking]

And if you don't get it by now, I

am

a callous bastard.

[Idiotking]

I've already explained what I was trying to do by asking for you guys to question me. If somebody has to be the scapegoat for discussion to be started, it may as well be me, since I can defend myself to a degree.

[Idiotking]

Well it HAS been 24 pages. I think I can understand why Hero's impatient.


Jase, what's your (detailed) opinion my most recent arguments with Wall-E?

[Idiotking]

I think it's a waste. You say you've seen other people fake autism and such in other games, but how are we to know this? How do we know you didn't? It's all specualtion. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do but it's seeming a bit "off" to me.

Not concerning the AS, I mean. Concerning the rest. You're still not talking as much as you should, and I want your input on what's going on. You only seem to post in extremely short, 1-2 line posts that are lacking substance and any real... umph, for lack of a better term. They're weak posts. I want you to speak up and actually join the discussion as an active player.

[Idiotking]

I think it's a waste. You say you've seen other people fake autism and such in other games, but how are we to know this? How do we know you didn't? It's all specualtion. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do but it's seeming a bit "off" to me.

Not concerning the AS, I mean. Concerning the rest. You're still not talking as much as you should, and I want your input on what's going on. You only seem to post in extremely short, 1-2 line posts that are lacking substance and any real... umph, for lack of a better term. They're weak posts. I want you to speak up and actually join the discussion as an active player.

I need to know specifically what argument you're reffering to then. I only looked at your posts between my post yesterday and the most recent ones.

More specifically, then, I'm talking about after yellowbunny started semi-arbitrating my argument with Wall-E (though I don't know if she did it intentionally or not). Basically post-rage on my part.

[Idiotking]

Mod, could you prod qwints? Or is it too recently since he last posted?

And I don't think we'll know Wall-E's role until he dies, to be honest. While I'm not as annoyed by him lately (kudos to yellowbunny and Kreriov on getting him to actually post a semblance of a defense (maybe (?))), I still think he could be hiding his real role. The reason for this is that if it took us this long to actually get him to respond reasonably, it could equally be difficult for us to extract a true roleclaim from him (assuming he isn't actually a VT or scum).

[Idiotking]

Ghaaaaa!!!! When qwints posts, he doesn't kid around, does he?

Post 452

My questions aren't purely reactionary. Lots of people have gone after me thusfar, but I only stuck to the ones I found interesting.

IK posted this is response to Sajin. After this post, he stuck on only pressuring Wall-E (though he did ask Jase and me for opinions.) IK's tunnelling on Wall-E has been quite interesting and it makes me think that they are very unlikely to be scum buddies.

I absolutely hate Sajin' suggestion that we should stop talking after we find a day 1 lynch. Getting information from people before reveals is EXTREMELY useful.

I guess you could say I've been tunneling, but the main reason for that is because of Wall-E's obsessive refusal to defend himself until relatively recently. Right now I'm not so sure about him anymore.

And I agree that Sajin's suggestion is terrible. I think that's actually pretty suspicious, since it doesn't seem like something a townie would say in any situation.

And I don't think we'll know Wall-E's role until he dies, to be honest. While I'm not as annoyed by him lately (kudos to yellowbunny and Kreriov on getting him to actually post a semblance of a defense (maybe (?))), I still think he could be hiding his real role. The reason for this is that if it took us this long to actually get him to respond reasonably, it could equally be difficult for us to extract a true roleclaim from him (assuming he isn't actually a VT or scum).

I REALLY don't like this post. IK, after spending a ton of time attacking Wall-E, suggests that he might be a power role. This really feels like rolefishing to me.

tldr Summary
Although I still don't like Wall-E (for early claim and stonewalling posts), I think that if he is town, an IK + hero scum team is quite possible.

Not rolefishing at all. It's actually the opposite of that; I'm saying there's no way we could EVER know Wall-E's real role until he's dead, so we shouldn't try to figure it out unless Wall-E suddenly becomes very, very cooperative.

I'm actually thinking Sajin's pretty scummy now; his active lurking + disinterest in expressing his views until the mafia has had a nightkill opportunity are both scummy.

As for the "wait till day 2" thing, I'd like to point out that the mafia could kill the most pro-town player tonight, meaning day 2 we wouldn't get his input at all.

[Idiotking]

Why yes, yes I did read the reasoning.
No, I also haven't agreed with any of your points yet. Because absolutely nothing you say is something I would agree to. No, your plan does NOT hurt scum worse than it hurts town; information is information, and there is NOTHING else that matters to the town. If we get good information, regardless of the day it is made available, then we should go for it. Do you think I'm scummy for not agreeing with you?

I refer to a "nightkill opportunity" as such because that's exactly what it is for scum. To them, they get to knock off the most pro-town players. Odds are that at this point, the pro-town players are readily visible, unless they're scum, in which case scum won't nightkill scum (barring there being more than one scumgroup, but in a game this small I doubt that's possible). So keeping us from getting the info townie players can provide is obviously scummy, since there's low chance they'll survive for long anyway. This is, of course, assuming my experiences with scum are accurate for the majority, but then again, your argument is also based on a large number of assumptions.

[Idiotking]

qwints, this begs a new question. You yourself just said that Wall-E is scummy. Do you really think it would mean I'm scum if he turned out to be town, considering you JUST NOW voted for him and said he was scummy? Is it possible you're doing just as Wall-E did in seeing connections between players when there's actually a lot of antagonism between them?

[Idiotking]

Ah. I can live with that, I suppose. But like I've said, Wall-E's held himself rather well lately... I dunno. Sajin's ideas seem horribly scummy, and his active lurking is pretty bad, but then there's... well, Wall-E. I dunno what to think.

[Idiotking]

If you think lynch all liars is incredibly scummy IK your an idiot.

And I still think that was a slip. Your waiting for night.

Did I SAY "lynch all liars" is incredibly scummy? Did I even MENTION "lynch all liars"?

And no, it wasn't a slip... now it looks like you're grasping for straws, just like Wall-E was. Why do you want to shut off discussion so badly? Why do you say I'm waiting for night, when it's YOU that wants to rush things?

[Idiotking]

I said that pre-Wall-E cooperation. Excuse me if I'm capable of changing my mind, since now I'm not as sure about Wall-E's scumminess.


"If we have a good lynch today" is not something for you to decide. That's the business of the town as a whole.

unvote

You're starting to get pretty interesting, Sajin. Why have you only become talkative now that we have a "good lynch" in your eyes?

[Idiotking]

To clarify, the only way for the town to say there is a good lynch is for the town to, you know, actually LYNCH someone yet. Obviously we have not reached such a majority vote yet.

[Idiotking]

I don't like Idiotking right now. It seems as though he's trying to look for a reason to get off Wall-E's back now that it makes him look bad. Its just inconsistent with his earlier behavior. He goes from arguably leading the case against Wall-E to unvoting simply because Wall-E had posted better(or something to that effect)? He's also pretty quick to jump on Sajin once qwints posts his suspicions of him. What were minor suspicions here and there have turned into a full confrontation.

Inconsistent with my earlier behavior... do you think it's impossible for me to change my mind? I'm still iffy about Wall-E, but my main problems with Wall-E were his refusal to defend himself (partially resolved), and his refusal to respond to our statements (again, partially resolved). As both are partially and not completely resolved, I'm iffy.

And I've been suspicious of Sajin for quite a while now, him as well as qwints. So no, this is not as sudden of a change in focus as you make it out to be. qwints has made his opinions pretty clear, so he's not as bad anymore, but Sajin's still hiding. I hate the fact that he wants us to withold information until day 2. Do you think I'm suspicious for holding this opinion?

[Idiotking]

You can change your mind, yes, but it doesn't seem like you would based on what Wall-E;s done. He defended himself, what, once?

Once is more than none, and coming from Wall-E, and considering the way he's acted throughout the entirety of Day 1, I think it's significant enough to warrant an unvote for the time being. He didn't defend himself when he was at L-1, but he did later when he was calmly talked into it. I don't think I would react as well under similar pressures. Then again, he's acted like a raging lunatic for ages, so I'm still not convinced of his innocence, either. Not even close.

I'm so concerned about your reasons for attacking Sajin, its the timeframe that makes me iffy. And I can't really see any posts of yours until after qwints made his post of any serious suspicions of Sajin(maybe I'm not looking hard enough?). Would you care to point them out for me?

None of them outright said I thought he was scummy, so I don't think you've missed any. Notice also that I haven't FOS'd Sajin nor have I voted for him. But I'm interested, and I find his thought process flawed and his aims anti-town. So while I'm not going to make a direct move against him, it's still interesting.

Not rolefishing at all. It's actually the opposite of that; I'm saying there's no way we could EVER know Wall-E's real role until he's dead, so we shouldn't try to figure it out unless Wall-E suddenly becomes very, very cooperative.

Once you start talking about roles other than Town v. Scum, it can be rolefishing, or at least speculating. You were definitely speculating on Wall-E being a PR.

If that's true, it was unintentional. I personally don't want to know his role, because I won't believe it no matter what he says. If he's a vanilla then I already know it. If he's a power role, he's already claimed vanilla, so why would I believe him? There would be no point. Is this still speculation? I'm not used to dealing with roleclaims like this, so for technique training purposes, I need to know.

[Idiotking]

The more information the scum have about exactly what each of us think about each other, the more they can set up the next day to be able to lynch a townie. If we have talked enough to determine a good lynch I will shut up until the next day. So if you want me to post more about other people you need to convince me why you are not a good lynch.

I've already said what I find wrong about your ideas, but here we go again: The above quote is anti-town because it attempts for us to close off discussion until the scum get a nightkill in before we gain information from the guy who was nightkilled. This limits discussion. There is a point where prolonged discussion becomes detrimental to the town, yes, but I don't think we've gotten there yet. You say we've determined a good lynch, right? How can you say that when we haven't actually killed him? Wall-E's a good lynch in YOUR eyes and in the eyes of some others, but until the majority of the town is voting for him, the discussion should continue. It is scummy to try to limit information and discussion in any case. The reason for this is, the less info there is to go around, the greater the opportunities the scum have to bend the uninformed town to their will. I do not think that the mafia will get anything out of further discussion at this point, but I do believe the town will.




For your 2nd paragraph:

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

[Idiotking]

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

Gambits should be used extremely sparingly - as in, only when the potential gain is large and extremely likely. When someone is forced to roleclaim and they claim VT, I assume they're telling the truth until I get a really good reason otherwise. So the only exception I see to LAL is when the person contradicts themself, they explain why they lied in the first place (ie, Lepton's Gambit).

Which is why you'll never see me doing one. But in my opinion, if you're a skilled player, and you can successfully perform a gambit, you're golden. If you fail at it, you can explain it well enough (if you're a good player). If you're overestimating your abilities and attempt a gambit that's doomed to failure, bad luck. But all are situations where townies can, will, and do lie.

[Idiotking]

Idiotking, who do you think is scum?

At this point, I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm leaning towards Wall-E still, but now Sajin seems a little bad, too. And I can't see a connection at all between them, unless I'm just missing something important.

[Idiotking]

Yes, that's my EXACT reasoning... /sarcasm

Are you people not listening when I say I don't CARE what role you have? Roleclaiming to me would mean NOTHING at this point. I don't give a damn what role you have if you're a townie, just so long as you're a townie.

I don't understand how you can misunderstand the phrase "I don't want to know your role if you're a townie".

[Idiotking]

Roleclaiming to me would mean NOTHING at this point

I find that very hard to believe, and it would be problematic if it were true. It would mean something even if it didn't save Wall-E from a lynch.

This is Day 1. Nobody should roleclaim on Day 1 unless they're under fire. Wall-E has already roleclaimed, and nobody else is under enough fire to warrant anything close to a roleclaim. So to me, it would mean absolutely nothing to roleclaim. If I'm mistaken on this point, feel free to clarify why it would matter. I'm inexperienced when it comes to oddly timed roleclaims such as this.

I don't understand how you can misunderstand the phrase "I don't want to know your role if you're a townie"

That's a very easy phrase to misunderstand because "townie" is ambiguous. It could refer to either role ("vanilla") or alignment ("pro-town").

Townie meaning alignment. I always say vanilla when I mean vanilla, though I can see how it would be ambiguous.

[Idiotking]

It's funny and hypocritical and somewhat scummy when Idiotking accuses Hero slightly about being defensive. He's basically admitted that he's totally overdramatically jumpy himself and it's in fact his way of gauging other's reactions to him, there's some really serious double standards going on here.
(Later add: post 532 by IK again displaying knowledge, almost embracement of own overreacting tendency)

Hero's sustained vote on inactive cubarey: so IK thinks we should allow flaking out of the game to be an easy way to shake off all suspicions?
If someone has done stuff others find sufficiently scummy then I don't think the replacer should be able just start from scratch - I think it's quite ok that they would need to try to shake off suspicion by acting pro-townish.
I'm not sure what to think of Hero's giving up quite easily and agreeing with Idiotking, could be scum conflict-dodging. Or then I'm just wrong about this whole replacement business.

I'm not going to say I don't overreact. I'm just an emotional kind of guy. I overreact to a LOT. But I also notice it in other people, too. Should one NOT mention a scumtell when it's present, just because one also makes that same scumtell? Sure, it's hypocrisy, but it's THERE, isn't it?

And no, I don't mind if Hero voted for the replacement on the replacement's own merits. But if he wanted answers out of the replacement that the replacement simply doesn't have BECAUSE HE REPLACED IN, I don't think the replacement deserves the vote.

[Idiotking]

Regards to the overreacting I just find it peculiar that you're not trying to control it when you think yourself that it's a scumtell in your play. But I guess this applies whether you're scum or town, just strange this seemingly deliberately letting something you're cognizant of hinder your play in other players' eyes.
And Hero's defensiveness was, if I remember correctly, of a such remarkably more subtle variety than yours that it kinda confirmed to me that you can quite sensitively assess this.

Regards to replacement voting, see I think it's perfectly ok to vote for a replacement on the original persons (de)merits. If there's a stain in the playerslot's actions it will stay there regardless of person changing. Of course you can't get explanations but if someone thinks the stain is scummy enough, more than just worthy of some probing, I say vote away.

My problem is that in my experience, I can't do things in a small way; when I defend myself, I defend zealously, when I attack someone I attack zealously, and when I try to rectify my mistakes, I do so zealously enough to be a scumtell in its own right. Read Election Mafia '08 if you have any doubts about the seriousness of this statement.

I agree, it would be bad for me to just ignore this problem, but unless I deal with it very, very, very, very gradually, I'm going to screw up and get lynched, no matter my alignment.

As for the replacement voting, I suppose that's just a difference of opinion. As far as Day 1 goes, I'd rather give replacements a clean slate to start out on, rather than hound them before they fully understand what's going on in the game.


I'm not voting because I honestly don't know who to vote for right now. I have no leads beyond Wall-E and Sajin, and both are fully spent already. Maybe I'm subconsciously waiting for someone to make a scummy statement, maybe I'm just confused. I can't think clearly at the moment.

[Idiotking]

Wall-E's been difficult to deal with since we started. I don't think I'm going to get anything more out of him than I already have. Sajin, too.

[Idiotking]

So you think Sajin is equally scummy as Wall-E? In that case I'd suggest you went with the bigger wagon, simply because that's most likely the lynch for the day. Suspicions can be stated just as easily in words rather than votes. Personally I think Day 1's gone on too long, but I'm afraid to say we should wrap things up

[Idiotking]

I meant that Wall-E's more likely to be the lynch than Sajin. Should have said 'go' instead of 'went'. Tense error.

I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens.

[Idiotking]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

I've read through pretty much all of Wall-E's Wallposts of Death, but I don't have time to respond to it all at the moment. Besides, since X is already doing his own point-by-point rundown of the thing, it'd get confusing if I did one too; I'll wait until he's done unless you guys really want me to now.

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum? This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level. What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie? This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself. Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

[Idiotking]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

It's only tunneling if I'm scum and you're town. Since the opposite is apparently (to me) the case, I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue.

That's funny, actually. I think it's the opposite, making your statement tunneling by your own words. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about with rubber and glue. You lost me there.

Why not just comment on what you find relevant? Instead of putting the ball soley in X's court, I mean. It can't hurt a game to make more posts (exception to every rule: zwetschenwasser).

The vast majority of it I'd call dismissive again. Considering you're calling me dismissive, I'm calling you dismissive, etc. I don't think we'd really get anywhere. I could pick out little bits to respond to, yeah, but selecting what you're going to respond to and leaving the rest is suspicious. It's ignoring stuff that may actually be relevant, whether you think it is or not.

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation

The word fixation implies irrationality. I do not think it's irrational of me to pursue you in light of the many, many uncompiled callouts I've made on you and your plays.

Nitpick some more. I'm openly willing to say I've been fixating on you a little bit. It's actually possible to say the town as a whole has, and still is. We've all been a little irrational, that's kind of necessary on Day 1 when solid evidence is nonexistent. Without solid evidence, there's always a bit of a risk, always a little irrationality.

on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum?

I've already answered this.

Do it again, please. I think for all the times we've repeated ourselves for you, you can do it one more time for me.

This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level.

Antagonization is my tool. I assure you that you should never take anything I say as an insult in any way. It's a side-effect of my condition and not actual anger.

Fair enough. If you really have that condition, it's forgivable, and if you don't, I've been a jackass today too, so fair's fair.

What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie?

For the record, it's happened before. I don't play this game with ego (I'm told some people are shocked when I say this, but I really, honestly don't) so it's only a question of re-evaluating myself.

Wasn't meaning your ego. I want to know what your actions on Day 2 would be. For strategy you have to plan ahead (or at least, keep future possibilities for courses of action in mind), to win at Mafia you have to have a strategy, no matter your alignment.

This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself.

Hmm.

Hypothetical situation, remember.

Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

I would, in that unlikely scenario, apologize to the town and forge on. I'd like to think that's really obvious, but since I'm repeating myself just for you, you lucky scum, I'd like you to go ahead and keep on 'assuming' I'm town (you already know it). That works just fine for me.

Don't be snide. Apologizing to the town wouldn't do you any good, it'd make you look worse. "Oh, I stuck to my convictions to the end, I'm sorry, I won't do it again." That'd earn an immediate vote from me. And how would you 'forge on?' I'm not asking for generalizations, I'm talking specifics. Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

The biggest reasons I've focused almost exclusively on IK are his repeated use of logical fallacies. X's posts seem to indicate that he was unaware of that fact, but I have said it before, so I'm making a note of it again here. My posts in isolation are almost all me telling IK what's wrong with his argument style from a standpoint of (necessarily) cold logic.

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

So you admit you've focused almost exclusively on me, and yet you refuse to admit you've fixated. Obsessing over one person is ALWAYS irrational (and a little creepy). May I call that a logical fallacy (since irrationality always is)? How about your

logical fallacies

? Don't say you don't have them, they're there. They've been made abundantly clear. You're suspicious of things that aren't scumtells, that's at least 75% of your argument.

You will also probably not be surprised to find out that I'm not a purely logical player. From what I've seen, neither are you, no matter how you characterize yourself.

And for the record, no, that's not an appeal to emotion. Not any more than "Oh, I have AS!" was. If you'd actually look at my other game on this site, you'd know that doubting my skill is very much justified.

[Idiotking]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

[Idiotking]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

They aren't? Why, then, have I witnessed several wolves self-destruct when pressured? It may be an UNLIKELY scumtell (i cannot believe that you've driven me to refuting my own points... i feel like i'm shadow-boxing) but in my book, it IS a scumtell.

Did I self destruct? It's not impossible for townies to "flip out". You've also most likely seen that happen, as well.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words. You're upset that I forced you to compile a case against me? Do you want me to just roll over and die instead of forcing people to compile their case? Those questions can be considered rhetoric, as I believe the only answer should be an unequivocal "No."

I'm not upset at all at the moment. I capitalize to stress things. Oh, and you DISMISSED the fact that I pointed out that you do the same things to me. Yeah, I didn't want to have to pile all that together.

I shouldn't have had to

. You should have been cooperative right from the beginning, making that compilation unnecessary. You weren't. That's one bloody huge scumtell to me.

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

I'm frankly fucking shocked nobody lynched me for it. I probably would have. But I've been wanting to 'come out' for a while now, to help me in my games.

TO HELP YOU IN YOUR GAMES? So now you're freely admitting that you appealed to emotion for this purpose.

vote: Wall-E

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

Posts like this are what keep me on your trail. Proper argument establishes a point or points out the flaws in another person's arguments. This is neither, it's just rhetoric.

This establishes a point and points out the flaws in your argument. You've been refusing to answer our questions for a LONG time now, and spewing your own "rhetoric", to use your own by-now-cliche word. I'm sorry if this is too subtle for you. And NO, I'm NOT going to copy and paste the HUNDREDS of times you've done this so far.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

There is a huge difference between chasing a badguy and getting shot and running into a room where you know you'll be shot pointlessly.

Yeah... "I'm a townie, so don't go after me" argument. Really... yeah.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

I can neither confirm nor deny the possibility that your RVS discussion was helpful. It's an unquantifiable and frankly pointless thing to discuss. I'm merely showing people what I think about your motives, which you have refuted with meta behavioral explainations that will not excuse you from these behaviors in my personal playbook.

If you can neither deny nor confirm the possibility that the RVS discussion was helpful, why do you automatically consider it a scumtell? And you want me to defend my MOTIVES? This is purely psychological, in which case, my meta DOES matter. The only defense I can possibly have from something that has no logical foundation (none whatsoever, because it's all based on predictions and possibility, not hard fact) and is focused on the way my brain works is a

meta defense

.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

It's possible that you do not know what I mean by argument and refutation.

Ok.

Start with a statement (or end with one) such as: The world is flat.

M'kay.

Now add supporting evidence:

With you so far.

Evidence 1: I look out at the horizon and it appears flat.
Evidence 2: A small ball of wet mud will sink into a flat surface given enough time.

Uh huh.

(a small ball of wet mud will not sink into a perfectly flat surface given ten billion years)

An opponent of this view would then REFUTE the key points by making his OWN arguments or refutations.

Have done so.

The earth is round.

Why yes, yes it is.

Evidence 1: Ships disappear over the horizon.
Evidence 2: The moon, sun and all other heavenly bodies appear to be round.

Refutation 1: Appearances can be decieving.
Refutation 2: The earth is not a ball of mud. It's harder and therefore retains its shape better.

I could go on to again refute the prior arguments.

Poor examples. There's no subtlety. This is Mafia, so either the "Evidence" guy or the "Refutation" guy is probably scum. If he's scum, he's actually trying to kill the other guy, and vice versa. You've dismissed my refutations of you anyway. I don't even know if you notice when you do.

Notice there's no name-calling, angry spluttering, flipping out or logical fallacies. Untrue things may be said, but that's different. In fact, both people sound rather smarter for avoiding those things, and the conversation is easily followed, unhindered by hurt feelings or rage.

You're going by pure logic (faulty, faulty logic). I AM NOT A PURE LOGIC PLAYER. And notice, your examples didn't outright dismiss each other. So you're not going by your own examples.

Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

I don't like this post at all. It seems rather threatening to Wall-e. As town, the top priority is supposed to be lynching scum. Wall-e claims he thinks you are scum. Why should he not go after you as hard as possible? And if you are the lynch, that means the majority of people agreed with him. Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not threatening him at all, this is a

hypothetical situation

. Yes, he is supposed to go after me if he thinks I'm scum.

Hypothetically, if he's wrong, WHAT WILL HE DO ON DAY 2?

He can go after me as hard as he pleases, yes, but I can't be a scumteam of one. I'd have to have scumbuddies, right? And if I'm the lynch and the majority of people agree with him,

why would he apologize to the town?

Two issues:
1a) You've been pretty obsessed with Wall-e as well.

I've already admitted that I was. The whole town has, to a lesser extent.

1b) It is arguable that fixating on one person if they are your only scum lead is irrational. And also the logical fallacy thing is an issue, since I'm not sure that Wall-e's fixation on you is as bad as you are painting it to be.

34 pages, a whole lot of scummy behavior, and I'm his only lead. That's IMPOSSIBLE. Yeah, that is exactly as bad as I paint it to be.

2) Aren't "scumtells" always arguable?? If there was ever anything which 100% of the people who did was scum, only idiots would do it. Scum tells are an issue of someone being more or less probable to be scum.

They are arguable. But the arguments also have to be believable.

[Idiotking]

fos Sajin

for thinking it's scummy to list your opinions, based on his own opinion rather than what is actually scummy.

[Idiotking]

It is perfectly fine for someone to list who all they think are suspicious, and why.

This is not lining up lynches

. It is merely stating suspicion and reasoning, nothing more. It is not saying, "Ok, we should lynch X, then Y, then Z, in that order." It's saying, "Ok, I find X scummiest, so he's got my vote. Y and Z I'm suspicious of, and will pursue, but not necessarily lynch until I'm sure."


(The use of the name 'X' was used solely for variable purposes, and any similarity in names, places, and other such things is purely coincidental.)

[Idiotking]

We don't have time for that shit!

Guys, it looks like either Looker or Wall-E. My preference is Wall-E, and since it seems Looker's not going to respond until the weekend, we've got to rap this up, so you guys who are voting for him are going to have to decide whether to let him have another chance to respond upon his return by killing Wall-E Day 1 and waiting, or to run a serious risk of no-lynch, unless we get a majority voting for Looker in the next two days. We're very much out of time.

[Idiotking]

By the way, that as an epic run-on sentence.

[Idiotking]

Crap.

Ok, folks, if we haven't reached a majority vote before 10:00 PM CST tonight, I'm going to vote for whoever's got the most votes, regardless of who it is. We CANNOT risk a no-lynch, no matter the cost.

[Idiotking]

Ahoy new guy!

To be honest, I'm not surprised at the mafia's actions. If you're mafia in a game this small, it's probably safe to assume that there's no other scumgroups, which means everyone else is a confirmed town, or at least, everyone else is a target. Since you know everyone else is town or third party, if someone softclaims/fullclaims mason and tries to protect the other mason, it'd probably be smart going for someone else to hit a powerrole. However, I'm not sure if masons and powerroles are generally combined, like a mason/cop or doctor/cop.

On another note, it's very possible that yellowbunny and Looker are a scumgroup claiming mason because it's convenient and likely to give them something close to a confirmed townie status in most people's eyes. I'm not saying this is likely, but it's certainly possible.

[Idiotking]

Crap, meant "doctor/mason".

[Idiotking]

That makes me feel a bit uneasy though.
"It's very possible that they are scum but I'm not saying it's likely."
Ugh.

Let me clarify: I'm not suspicious of them at the moment, mostly because of yellowbunny's play thusfar. But Looker's scumminess shouldn't be discounted either. It's like they're going in opposite directions, one pulling them up and one pulling them down.

Lots of pretty definitive language but then a conditioner. It's up in the air BUT I'll hammer first chance I get. I have moved from thinking this is not just indecisive or a personality traint, but actually a scummy conditioning move.

It was up in the air, yes, but by that point we were in information overload, as several people repeatedly said, so if my original target (Wall-E) were at L-1, I'd have hammered in a heartbeat. Even at that point I knew that it would be impossible to get quality info out of him on subsequent days considering the hell we were put through trying to get him to talk on Day 1. That was essentially his biggest scumtell, and would have contaminated all conversation for the rest of the game, until he was lynched (I can't possibly see the mafia killing him, he would have been like a secret weapon to them or something).

[Idiotking]

I think believing the claim is a good idea for the time being. My gut tells me yellowbunny is not scum, and though I still have my reservations about Looker, running the risk of attacking actual masons doesn't seem to be the healthy thing to do at the moment.

[Idiotking]

I also think that IK is worthy of being looked at. Despite the language thing listed above, there are moments in which I find him very suspicious. Take post 911 for example. This was written AFTER a mason claim. Almost everyone else unvoted and revoted someone else - I'm surprised at this post from a tow perspective. Maybe it's just more qualifying (don't blame me for lynching a townie, I told everyone I would vote whoever at 10pm to avoid no lynch) but it just makes me more and more suspicious.

Feel free to examine me. Any questions? Also feel free to check my meta; if you want, I might be able to link you over to another site I play on (unless there's a forum rule that says otherwise, I'll check in a second) so you'll have more to go on than just the one game here. I'm eager to see what kind of case an actually competent player can come up with, and I get the feeling you're not stupid, or at least not visibly so.

[Idiotking]

Here

It might be necessary to make an account on the website to see the forum I'm directing you to. If you don't want to, that's fine, I don't know if I would, but the account is free and you can forget about it forever afterwards. If you want to see the entire forum and not just the thread, it's down at the bottom of the forum's page, "Scum of the Universe".


Oh, and if you do actually look there, STAY OUT OF FLAMEWARS if you have any intent to keep your sanity. That place is... unhealthy.

[Idiotking]

I don't think I'm going too far by saying that if he thinks people are scummy on Day 1, and they haven't cleared themselves by Day 2 and the night actions don't help clear them, then going after them is not scummy, it's... well, it's exactly what you SHOULD do, really.

That, and it's OK to question people that aren't completely confirmed.

[Idiotking]

Iso Post 14 - Asks CUBE to provide more evidence against him even just a few pages after the game has started. That doesn't address the evidence at hand and is a pretty otugh requirement that early in the game. Also says this: Answer me or I'll end up voting for you, I've seen this behaviour a bit from IK and I"ll dub it 'licence to vote'. He's giving himself a licence to vote for CUBE that he can fall back on if things sour. (Not my fault we lynched a townie, he didn't answer me properly.)

I asked Cube to provide more evidence simply because he said I was scum. Not maybe scum, not suspicious actions, scum. So, I wanted to see what his evidence was. Of course it was too early in the game to have enough evidence for that,

that was/is exactly my point

.

You also point out a "license to vote" situation, as you call it. One of the main reasons we lynched Wall-E was because he was refusing to answer our questions. Therefore, the majority of the town performed the same thing you point me out as doing. I was just more verbal about it, but the end result was exactly the same.

Iso post 17 - More qualifiers. CUBE was overzealous but not necessarily scummy. Here is part I'm concerned with:

I don't see anything scummy from X, but it's little unsettling to me that he seems to be clinging to me a bit, subtly defending me. Or I might be wrong about that. However, it's possible that he's preemptively connecting himself to me so that, if in the future he suddenly seems scummy, we'll both go down in flames. I'm probably reading way too much into that, though. Still, I like to state possibilities. It keeps me from being bored.

I think this stinks of distancing. Filled with qualifiers again, but also pretty soft on logic. Don't know many scum techniques that deliberately associatie themselves with a townie to bring them down if they go down. I doubt many townies would write up such and obscure point, and he makes a pre-emptive apology for just how obscure an observation it is. Looks like a clumsy attempt to help out X.

"Don't know many scum techniques that deliberately associatie themselves with a townie to bring them down if they go down." I've seen it happen repeatedly. Look at the link I provided to the other site, it has one such example.

Basically, it

was

distancing, but not in a scummy way. X was getting too close, I back away. It happens naturally, I'm not gonna lie about it. And check my meta; I pre-emptively apologize all the time on Day 1, because Day 1 is purely speculation. Even if you ignore my meta entirely, you have to admit that Day 1 is speculative. And I still think stating all possibilities is important, but I also know there's a difference between possible and probable, and I try to make sure that my opinions concerning a

possibility

and a

probability

aren't the exact same.

Iso post 21 and 22 Very defensive vs Wall-e's vote. Tries to dismiss earlier discussion. Returns the favour (possible OMGUS reply) and appeals to emotion in 22 by threatening Wall-e.

You're taking these out of context. Wall-E voted on information that had already been debunked, and didn't give his own reasoning. 22 was not an appeal to emotion; it was quite simply confusion. I could already tell Wall-E was self-terminating by his actions, and I wanted to pressure him into actually maybe possibly potentially thinking about what in the world he was doing. I honestly thought (and still think) he was killing himself for the exact same reasons we eventually lynched him.

Iso post 23 - More qualifying.

It's up to you to decide whether that's suspicious or not, but given the possibility that it could be a style issue, I'd prefer it if you actually look at my other games before coming to a conclusion. It certainly wouldn't hurt you.

Iso post 24 - Turns out Ojanen and I BOTH echoed quints. He calls it 'hedging', and noticed it all the way back there. IK's response again points towards meta (although others said it for him in the recent episode, YB and X) and doesn't discuss the fact that it makes him hard to pin down to a viewpoint (or at least, dismisses that as unimportant.
Again defends himself against Wall-e by trying to sweep it under the carpet and ask for more or more recent evidence. Accuses Wall-e of jumping his vote around to the most popular contender when really Wall-e remained pretty focused on IK.

I've already said this, but here goes again: I have two things I say. My opinion, and possibilities that pop into my head. They are not the same thing. My opinion I do not hedge on. Possibilities that pop into my head, I do. Don't try and pin those possibilities down as my opinion; I think it was pretty clear that I was certain Wall-E was scum. I did not hedge on this matter. On other peripheral stuff, I did, because it was merely possible, not my opinion.

And don't take the Wall-E situation out of context again. Wall-E'd voted for me on debunked evidence based purely on a single post by X. Then he unvoted, apologized, and then upon "getting his act together" he immediately revoted for me on equally pathetic evidence. You call it sweeping under the rug. THE EVIDENCE HE WAS USING WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED, AND HE IGNORED THE POSTS WHERE I ADDRESSED IT. I should NOT be defending myself from Wall-E now that he's been lynched, regardless of his alignment.

Posts 25-27 - Continues to dismiss the case without answering it. It's old, hasn't anything new happened - both of those aren't answers to legitimate attacks about his earlier reaction, just attempts to dismiss the case. Also starts to strongly push a case on Wall-e at this time, including unvoting him and revoting him. 25 is particularly harshly rebounded onto Wall-e claiming he must be scum or terrible - again, without simply talking about the points Wall-e raised.

It had already been addressed, and he didn't seem interested in actually making his own case against me until way, way, way, way late in Day 1. Wall-E did not raise any valid points that were his own. And, upon reviewing his "case" in its final form,

it was based entirely upon his opinion of my style

rather than anything definitive that could be called scummy. Reread his case against me and prove to me it isn't if you're going to be basing your case off of his.

Post 29 -

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly.

This stated philosophy goes against his rhetorical style of qualifying everything and always giving himself an out. For a person who believes in allowing people to examine him, he is awfully cagey.

Even at that point it was clear to me that, particularly in Election Mafia '08, other players would see my 'hedging' style as suspicious. So I have to experiment, and continue to do so. Unfortunately, style is based on what's natural to the player, so it's not something that changes easily. I still hedge, I'm still defensive from time to time, I know this. That's the whole point of my experimentation: to see what else I can do.

Also in this post:

My point was basically this: Wall-E only goes after those who are under suspicion anyway. I was under suspicion (by CUBAREY in particular), Wall-E voted for me once he finally decided to show up (I assume he wasn't paying much attention to what was going on, and picked me as a target because I was most visible and being examined). He also was after X, who was similarly under suspicion (you state yourself that X was getting "some flak"). Then, when Wall-E himself starts looking pathetically scummy, he suddenly apologizes and unvotes. Then, a relatively short time later, he votes for me again, using the logic (or lack of it?) he had for originally voting for me, apparently. My question is this: Why, according to his argument, has nothing relevant been said in so long? Why did he unvote me in the first place? Why did he apologize and then promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally? WHY? I have yet to hear an even tolerable answer, much less a good one.

This is a poor case. It starts with an assumption - that Wall-E only goes after those under suspicion. Wall-E actually had a long-standing argument with X where he didn't vote, there were several pages before he decided to vote IK among a few other candidates. He then unvoted with no more explanation than 'Hmm, interesting' and apologised in a later post about not posting enough content. He then revoted (wall-e iso post 26) with quite a reasonable accusation that IK started a common discussion about RVS and baited people to join it to take some of the heat off for his earlier erratic play. The only time he ever votes X is in ISO post 33, and then IN THE SAME POST unvotes and votes IK. He also explains the reason as thinking X and IK are scumbuddies.
IK's timeline of Wall-e's action doesn't stand up. Wall-e didn't just go with the flow, nor did he ever have a vote on X except for the top of his post to the end of his post.. He made reasonable points that weren't answered, and didn't just jump on the bandwagon of people near him. It's also worth pointing out that Wall-e never votes for Looker, which would be an obvious choice for him to vote, trying to stay alive. So the charge of opportunistic doesn't stick to Wall-E.
It's a very poor case, it seems inspired by hypo-defensiveness and OMGUS (note IK backs off after the apology then fires up again after he's revoted and says later 'promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally'. That's imply not true- Wall-e was making reasonable posts filled with content and quotes after the apology - the only similarity after he apologises (and again - he apologised for not posting much, nothing to do with voting IK) is that he once again voted IK. And bingo, IK steps up his attack on Wall-E again.

I intend to address this in its many parts, but I'd like to request that you break it down into individual points so I can work on them one after the other. I get the feeling that a lot of my responses will be "You think this now that you know Wall-E was innocent, but you wouldn't have at the time." Not a good response, but true nonetheless. Sometimes the simple responses are the most honest. That, and I ask you. From a purely observational perspective, what is your opinion of Wall-E's play? Consider my play as opposed to his, and not these little parts in their own. Look at our issues with him and his lack of response to them. What is your opinion on that? I seriously believe that if you're going to base your case off his (not copy it, you're making good points he never did) you should re-examine your source material and all the context that goes with it.

Iso post 30

I also admit to hedging, yes, but here's the thing. I've been pretty consistent with my opinions thusfar, I think. My hedging is mostly for details and future possibilities. I believe Wall-E is scum. That is fact to me. No hedging. Wall-E cannot seem to decide who is scummy and who is not. His on again/off again votes for me show this. I don't think that's a contradiction. Though I could be wrong

I didn't attack X. I haven't attacked you or qwints, who have shown suspicion of me. All I'm after is Wall-E at the moment. Why? Because I think he's scum, and has YET to answer my arguments against him. Scumhunting is good, yes, wonderful. But I'm not overly good at it unless I'm directly under fire in the first place. I find Wall-E to be scum, or completely insane. Either way, I think he deserves to be lynched today.

Makes a firm point when pressed - against a townie. Could be a mistake, of course, but that's finally black and white, so we can at best agree his first strong stance is unfortunate. His last paragraph essentially admits to being prepared to lynch an 'insane' townie (again, is insane a reasonable summary of Wall-e's cases up until now?) and to OMGUS reasoning and voting. (Am I going to be attacked because I'm placing you directly under fire?)

Wait... are you... are you honestly arguing that I shouldn't have gone after Wall-E because he was a townie, when he wasn't dead and confirmed at the time? You see it in 20-20 hindsight. I can't believe this is what you're arguing, so please clarify.

And yes, insane is a very,

very

reasonable summary of Wall-E's (lack of) cases up to now. And look back at why I voted for Wall-E. I said I saw him as self-terminating. I still say I see him as self-terminating, he self-terminated himself right into the grave. It was not OMGUS in any sense of the term.

I've also gotten into numerous arguments concerning whether it's ok to lynch someone who's merely anti-town (insane). I still think that if it's not a confirmed townie and the player is acting anti-town, then the possibility of scumminess is likely. Disagree if you want, it's an issue about playstyle and game theory, not about this game itself.

Iso post 35 - I have no idea why IK would post this except to perhaps excuse poor play (or scummy play). If people brought good points against you as town and you felt this way, couldn't you just apologise for making a poor play and correct yourself? Why the sob story? Should we not believe your points and arguments if you are such a poor player?

Please quote this or tell me what you mean by ISO posts (and how to find them). Up to now I've been pretty able to find the post you're referring to, but I can't find this one.

Iso post 45

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

This is almost a contradiction (I believe it was X again who defended IK on this point, saying it's not a contradiction. Could be wrong on that). But it's worth bringing up again, because without a doubt, to my mind, IK has been the single most defensive person in the game by a significant margin. His defences are rarely measured, often over the top with appeals to emotion, capital letters and dismissive rebukes. Even what I believe is an OMGUS case.

S'why I said I was defensive. I use capital letters a lot, mostly because lowercase letters clearly weren't making my point. The case is not OMGUS, if you've even partially read the volumes upon volumes upon volumes upon volumes of cases we made against Wall-E, you'd know it was not an OMGUS case.

Iso post 69 -

I will also be the first to admit I'm defensive.

And as a great man once said, being defensive is bad.

Uh huh. S'why I try to experiment from time to time. Either my experimentation is scummy, or my style is scummy. Make up your mind on which, and if you're going to go after my style like this at least confirm that my style is really what it is in this game.

Iso post 70 -

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess.

Still no argument here.

Read. VOLUMES, UPON VOLUMES, UPON VOLUMES OF CASES.

Iso post 73-75 suddenty has a a change of heart. Requests people to wait, gives Wall-e a chance to be heard out and actually unvotes. This is highly scummy in my mind. The single greatest advocate of a Wall-e lynch now unvotes after a massive amount of discussion, doesn't bother to summarise the case he wants Wall-e to answer. To me, he's trying to back off from what he knows is a townie lynch. Essentially it's a massive licence to vote.

Actually read the context here, please. The posts make sense

in context

. And don't revert to tunneling the minute you make a case, since it clearly seems you think I'm scum with no possibility of being townie. You're making an assumption here that may or may not be accurate, don't automatically think that it is.

Iso post 77 - revotes. His work is done, he can get 'townie points' for not rushing it, he gave Wall-e a chance. But he didn't actually make the case against Wall-e again. It could have been frustration, but I think it was just that he didn't need to hear the answers. The less Wall-e says the better. IK again has an out for himself (I gave him the chance to defend himself and he didn't takei t!) and promptly revotes.

You say I never made the case. I had been making the case against him all along. He dismissed me: that was the case. He ignored the points of other players: that was the case. He made broad-reaching assumptions and constantly tried tying me to other players ("X and I are a scumteam", "Yellowbunny and I are a scumteam", "Hero and I are a scumteam" etc.): that's the case. Really, he made his own case against himself. I just tried to make him see it.

Post 88 - IK attempts to address parts of Wall-e's case. He is unconvincing to me. He regularly answers a question with another question. I think it's scummy to start an RVS conversation when you're being scrutinised. Do you agree it started discussion? - it's not really an answer. You have yet to explain how post 53 was a flip out. Again - it doesn't answer the question. At the very least, explain what you were thinking during post 53, explain how it WASN'T a flip out, or if it was, why it was justified. Just questioning the point doesn't ANSWER it. He also makes three 'just go look it up' defences. So rather than wuote the evidence he was lacking, or make the point again, or even provde a link to the post where he made the defence, he just says 'I made the defence recently' and moves on. Also, often with capitals and dismissive/emotional language. It's just not a convincing argument at all, from my point of view.

Look. Up. My. Meta. If. You're. Going. To. Try. To. Make. A. Case. Against. It.

Seriously, for God's sake, this is getting damn annoying. Arguing about my style is indefensible because you can't defend your own style. It's just impossible. The only thing that can be done is for the accuser to look stuff up and verify that your style in one game matches your style in the rest. So I humbly ask you to do so.

Post 103 - Had given up on qualifiers but there's a few biggies in 103. Also more licence to vote.

Post 106 - Again being defensive, trying to pre-empt a defence if Wall-e turns town.

Post 107 Has started to turn off Wall-e and make a few posts against Sajin. This could be opportunistic.

Post 111-112 Hero notes this chance and IK is quick to defend himself (as ever).

I'm getting tired of telling you to look up my meta, I really am.

As for your statements about me turning off Wall-E, s'because he'd actually started responding, and it was freakin' amazing. My case upon him rest on his lack of defending himself, his dismissiveness, and his refusal to respond to us or even acknowledge that we were doing anything that didn't revolve around his case against me. When he actually started defending himself, my case lost its edge, and I backed off.

Post 121 IK says the day has gone on for far too long. This is in direct contradiction with his case against Sajin in 113

There is a point where prolonged discussion becomes detrimental to the town, yes, but I don't think we've gotten there yet.

Please quote "post 121". Still intend to address it but I don't see which post you're referring to.

Post 122

I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens.

I didn't edit that quote - those sentences are literally right next to each other. I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now, but if it comes down to it I'll hammer Wall-e the first chance I get? That is utterly bizarre. I think he was trying to give himself licence to vote, warning people he might hammer, but logically, it doesn't make sense. If there's doubt, why would you hammer first chance you got? If you feel that strongly, why aren't you voting that person? I really don't like this post.

STOP TUNNELING. But anyway, I was willing to end the day ASAP just because we were in information overload. Wall-E was still not fully cleared in my book. Hence, if the town felt it worthwhile to put him at L-1, I would kill two birds with one stone (literally) and end the day. I disagree with your read on my intent, and I find your tunneling disagreeable, though I guess you sort of do have 40 pages to go on.

Post 127-128 Chainsaw defence of X. The issue of lining up lynches was worth persuing, and don't need to be as blatant as 'X then Y then Z'. It was worth raising and to FoS because of it is just bizarre.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to butt into a conversation everyone else was having. I should have just kept my damn mouth shut, right? Hell no. I do not think it's scummy to list your opinions on Day 1, and I will NOT be changing that opinion, now or ever. I also think it's a waste of time trying to argue about it, but I know the only way to end such an argument is to win it, and so I tried.

Post 129 makes the night's vote a dichotomy between one confirmed townie and one suspected mason. I admit that they were the two major suspects, but there were other suspects and to push the two of them seems unwarranted.

Ok, so, like, you think I should have known Wall-E was confirmed townie in Day 1 then? Really? 'Cause, like, that kind of information is IMPOSSIBLE to get unless it's Day 2 and the person died. And please, please don't tell me that the only two people with significant numbers of votes on them are going to be ignored at crunchtime in favor of some other random suspect whose case is not at the forefront of discussion.

Post 131

Crap.

Ok, folks, if we haven't reached a majority vote before 10:00 PM CST tonight, I'm going to vote for whoever's got the most votes, regardless of who it is. We CANNOT risk a no-lynch, no matter the cost.

This is bizarre. After a mason claim, he is still apparantly prepared to hammer Looker. It's providing a licence to vote for what will turn out ot be a townie (assuming masons = true). Why would anyone hammer Looker after a claim like that? Well, I think IK thought he might be able to knock of a Mason and have a ready-made excuse - the deadline was coming up and I wanted to avoid a no-lynch. I don't like this post at all.

STOP TUNNELING GOD DAMMIT! And you're ignoring a critical point here: regardless of whether it makes me scummy or not to hammer, and regardless of the other consequences, my belief is that a lynch, regardless of who was lynched, is preferable to a no-lynch in ANY situation. That is a belief I'm 100% willing to stand behind and a risk I'm 100% willing to take at any time. Disagree if you want, it's still an issue about game theory, not about anything directly related to this game.

Post 132 qualifier.

Post 134 qualifier

Yeah, yeah, check my meta, blah blah blah.

Thoughts

I don't expect IK or anyone else to reply to every single point above - they are just examples of the main scummy behaviour I've seen from IK. If I had to summarise the things I find scummy from IK, they would be:

IK is very hard to pin down to a viewpoint. He almost always offers himself a way to back down on his opinions if questioned, and at key moments in the game gave himself a 'way out' by either unvoting and waiting for a defence he dismisses without analysis, declaring he would hammer if he got the chance, or if it got too close to the deadline so he couldn't be blamed for it later when they flipped town. etc.

I'm not hard to pin down to a viewpoint at all. I thought Wall-E was scummy. I think Sajin's thoughts concerning lists of suspicious players as suspicious in its own right. These things are very simple and easy to pin down. Everything else is possibility, which I like presenting for the town to mull over.

IK very rarely uses quotes, very rarely refers to posts, very rarely uses reasons to make his cases.

Uh huh. *Looks up at the wallpost he's about to make*

His language is often emotive, he overreacts, he is very dismissive of cases put against him without answering questions.

The only person I dismissed was Wall-E, and that was because he had no real case against me. I answered all questions, except those posed by Wall-E. All his points are based purely on his opinion of how the game should be played, not on what's scummy. If you're going to talk about my use of language, look up my meta. If you think I overreact, LOOK AT MY META. Yeah, this is meta defense, but like I've said, if you're going to argue about meta and style, at least look up to see if the meta and style are consistent in other, finished games.

He is overly defensive, has admitted that being defensive is scummy and that he has been playing defensively, as well as admitting that OMGUS cases are scummy while professing that his best cases are against those that suspect him.

Excuse me for being honest and knowing my limits. I'd rather tell the truth and be suspicious than lie and be more suspicious for trying to hide it.

IK and X seem to have a nice defensive arrangement where they subtly defend each other. I have found enough examples of this to be suspicious but it is not definitive as yet.

It's fully possible that we actually agree on specific points. I've agreed with other players too, such as qwints and yellowbunny. Am I scum with

them

, as well?

And now you all hate me for epic wall of text.

Sorry, man, but I believe I have 1-upped you.

[Idiotking]

Hi IK - I'm not going to address your defence yet because I think we should give people a chance to read both our posts and see what's convincing in them and what's not.

Fair enough, but don't wait too long. I hate it when people say they're going to continue making a case and then don't.

Secondly, I apologise for writing such a long case and I can see why it would be frustrating no matter what your alignment, but yelling at me to stop tunnelling mid-case is probably a lost cause - I felt that we needed to have some cases out on those we think scummiest, and you were mine.

Again, fair enough, but I have a natural tendency to get angry when people say emphatically that I'm scum instead of suspicious or possibly scum. If it's theory, keep it theory, don't call it law.

[Idiotking]

I get the feeling that a lot of my responses will be "You think this now that you know Wall-E was innocent, but you wouldn't have at the time."

Ah, but this is not the essence of the game. Now that we have actual facts - Wall-E's alignment, who voted for him, etc. we are SUPPOSED to go back and reread with this knowledge.

If you're trying to discover the intent of actions, you can't use the new knowledge, since it wasn't known at the time. Hence its newness.

[Idiotking]

But you don't know my alignment yet. You won't until I'm dead. So you can't

just

go by the assumption that I'm scum. Hence, you can't make a purely accurate assessment of my intentions, because in reality it could be something radically different from what you assume. We're talking about the intent of currently living people too, not just the dead ones.

[Idiotking]

Basically if you're going to try to discern my intent as if I were scum, also try to discern my intent if I were town. There's always two sides to a coin, people.

[Idiotking]

Basically, it

was

distancing, but not in a scummy way.

Barring the fact that I know that we're not partners, this seems like semantics. Distancing, to me, is a scum/mason tactic, and nothing else.

In my experience it doesn't have to be. Townies can try to distance themselves from others who are snuggling up too close.

STOP TUNNELING. But anyway, I was willing to end the day ASAP just because we were in information overload. Wall-E was still not fully cleared in my book.

Not

fully

cleared? If I interpret that correctly, it means that you thought he was likely town?

S'not the correct interpretation for what I mean. To me, you're fully cleared if you're dead and you're town, or you're so pro-town that there

cannot

be a case made against you. To me, you're completely scummy if, y'know, you're dead and you're scum. Most people still living, unless they've just lost their minds and roleclaimed scum, aren't fully cleared or scummy. They're shades of gray.

Look. Up. My. Meta. If. You're. Going. To. Try. To. Make. A. Case. Against. It.

Just a tip...this technique loses its effectiveness when carried over more than 7 words.

Meh, it does, but always capitalizing everything gets old.

[Idiotking]

Uh huh. Well, to be perfectly honest, a good deal of the case against me is still based purely on conceptions about what my style should be, as opposed to what my style really is. So meh. If you're not going to take the time to look at my meta you shouldn't be arguing about the way I say things. But I figure you're not going to bother listening, so again, meh.

And Ojanen, the last half of your post I don't understand. The accusations are true, "you're scum" was what I was reading, not "you could be scum, and I happen to think you are". Theory =/= Law.

[Idiotking]

@IK: What do you think of Ojanen, Kreriov, and Kreriov's case against her?

At this point I don't think it's enough to go on. Ojanen admits to inactivity, and I think honesty (followed up by redemption of said inactivity) is a towntell. As for the rest, it just doesn't convince me. Kreriov seems to be hypocritical somewhat; up to now, I've seen him as about equal to Ojanen in action and activity. His attacks against Ojanen surprise me, and make me a little suspicious.

[Idiotking]

A more detailed response to Ojanen's post, since the last one seems very vague in review:

While I don't agree with everything, I think it's does capture a decent amount of possibly scummy behaviour from Idiotking.

"

Possibly

scummy behavior." Isn't this sort of what I'm accused of doing? Adding in "Possibly, maybe, potentially", etc.

The contradictory language stuff I agree on being suspicious in the cases I see a scummy motivation to sprout uncertainty or get away without taking a stance while supporting suspicions all around. There's the fairly blatant stuff like for example "it's very possible - not saying it's likely"

Again, check my meta please. I'm 100% certain if you just look it up, you'll find that I do this all the time,

and I've only been scum once

.

about mason fake claim and "I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens".

What about this bothers you, exactly? I responded to Serial on this matter. Do you have a response for my... erm, response? Since without discussing said response, I'd just repeat it here.

Saying self-demeaning stuff like in ISO 31 and 35, upon further thought, actually could smell like scum mentality too. Someone questioning him about an action and he replying "yes, well I'm not a good player" is actually somewhat dodging the point.

Meta. But it's honest. You're discussing me right

now

, aren't you? Hence my skills need honing, since I know I'm town and therefore shouldn't have put myself in this situation. It'll take practice, which is why I'm still playing.

Implying willingness to lynch Looker after the claim does seem somewhat strange.

Again, I responded to Serial on this matter, and my response here would be the exact same. I'm a firm believer that a lynch gets information while a no-lynch gets none, and that's patently anti-town. No matter who gets lynched, it's better than a no-lynch, because at the very least, the town can get information from it. Think about it this way: Lynching is the town's only actual power, as a group. The only smart thing for the town to do is to use that power as well as it can every single day.

The defensive vs. defending oneself related to style and experimentation I didn't understand, please explain again.

It's not necessarily related, they're two different points. I am defensive by nature. My defensiveness is a problem, which I attempt to change by doing something other than what's natural. By experimentation. Since my style is naturally defensive, I have to experiment to find ways to make myself less defensive. One way I've found to do this is to hurl myself under the microscope and get pressured. If I can keep a cool head in that situation, I'm getting the job done.

[Idiotking]

Also, kudos for Serial completely taking over the course of the game. I don't think I've ever seen a more active replacement. Seriously, kudos!

[Idiotking]

He was a town lover in the other game, did newbish and frankly badly thought out stuff regarding reveals and such, got a LOT of flak and name calling and demeaned himself a lot. Answering "why did you do that?" with "I'm not good" dodges the question somewhat but I don't think it's a scumtell for him, low self-esteem is plausible after those reactions and doesn't seem to be just reflected in his username as a mindtrick for others.
I'll get back regards to the other stuff later.

Yeah, if memory serves the other lover's 'Bah' post was something like "F**k you, Idiotking!"

[Idiotking]

Tu quoque. Or more commonly, the "You, Too Fallacy." And it's not saying "possibly" that is suspicious (to others, not me). It's that you mention the opposite also, like adding "but also."

It's in keeping with my idea that everything's theory, so while I make one theory as to what I think is happening/has happened, I also keep tabs on what's going on in case I'm wrong.

[Idiotking]

@IK - OK, in reading your defence, I'm getting these major points:

1)

You often qualify your statements and rarely tie yourself to a decision. Your defence is that this is a meta-issue - you ALWAYS do that so it doesn't mean you're scummy.

To be honest, I also just looked at election mafia, not your other site's games, but I still feel you are doing this more in this game than you did before. It is also more damning when put in the context of some of your other traits - like the licence to vote stuff (which I didn't see in your meta much at all.) It paints a picture of someone who is not prepared to put themself out there.

But having said that, I accept it's not as scummy as if this was totally unusual for you.

I will say this though - I think it's something you should look at when you're town. The major advantage of townies is that you can throw yourself into a case, make really strong points and hunt strongly. And if it all goes wrong, you get caught out, or lynched or NKed - well - you've done the best you can for your team, you've case suspicions on those who deserve it and your death just gives your words more value. Scum can't be that strong. So if you're always hedging yourself, you're giving up that advantage. Plus, you're making yourself look scummy.

OK - so on meta, you seem to be doing it more than usual and doing it in conjunction with licence to vote stuff. However, suspicion has been downgraded because you have done it as town previously.

To be perfectly honest, the reason I'm doing it more now is because after election mafia I was a little depressed. A lot of times during that game I considered quitting, I didn't think I was any good, my self-esteem was shot to hell. So I think it's a little natural that I qualify more now after I got beaten.

2)

Your attacks on Wall-E weren't scummy because Wall-e was acting scummy and everyone suspected him.

I think that there is no doubt Wall-E showed some scummy behaviour. But in day one, whoever was scum had the advantage of information asymmetry - they KNEW he was innocent. So when going back, it's not enough to say someone suspected wall-e, I think you need to show why their action was suspicious, and perhaps indicative of information asymmetry.

That's where most of my points come in. Your case in ISO post 29 was stretching far beyond what Wall-E wrote. It looks to me like someone who knows he is innocent trying to push a cash a little too hard. I'll break it down as asked:

a) You make the claim that Wall-E only went after those who are suspicious - this is not true. He only ever really went after you, and he never went after Looker or Sajin or anyone else who came under suspicion. The only time he voted another player, he unvoted before the end of the post and revoted you. The claim you make is just not true.

The first vote he made against me was obviously because I was the only other player that had been observed. It's clear from his lack of posting anything for ages, and then his pathetic attempt to side with X's opinions in a post that had already been addressed repeatedly. Wall-E made no attempts to address my responses to X's post, he ignored it. This is a, without a shadow of a doubt, 100% clear-cut, case of "well I'm just gonna go for whoever's most suspicious that isn't me".

The second vote he made, I admit that in hindsight he had reasoning for. But the reasoning was only made clear pages and pages later. So, at the time, it still very much seemed like he was going after the most suspected player, which other than him was still me. At the time, and with the knowledge available to me, the claim was very much true.

b) He also had more of a case then you gave him credit for. He made the point that you deliberately steered the conversation onto a topic of whether RVS is useful or not to take the heat off yourself. This is a valid point that I don't think you ever answered.

Very simply, it would have been impossible to defend myself otherwise. I can't defend myself when there's no real evidence against me, only vague suspicions that are impossible to refute

because there is nothing specific for me to defend

. So to best explain why I had done what I had done up to that point, I opened up the RVS issue. That was honestly the best thing I could have done at that point: it explained quite adequately the reasoning behind my actions, and therefore was the best (only) defense available to me. So I took it.

c) Your questions -

Why, according to his argument, has nothing relevant been said in so long?

This doesn't answer any of his charges. Nothing scummy has to have happened, and even if it did, it doesn't cancel out anything that happened previously. This is a red herring question.

Again, with the knowledge at that time, there was nothing for me to go on. To my knowledge I had already addressed every last bit of his case against me. When I asked him whether nothing relevant had happened for so long, I was essentially asking him whether he could be bothered to read my responses to what he was basing his case on. Perhaps I should have made that statement a little clearer, but the way he was going on about me, it seems that he

did

read the responses, and just ignored them as "rhetoric".

d)

Why did he unvote me in the first place?

To be fair - this wasn't answered and is a mystery, but again, it doesn't give any defense of the points he brought up against you.

The first time he voted, he didn't bring any points at all against me. The second time he did, but didn't address my responses. Then began a long game of "you're scum" "no you are".

e)

Why did he apologize and then promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally?

This is also not true. He apologised for being inactive then after the apology became much more active. He didn't go back to how he was at all. He never apologised for making a case against you or voting you.

He didn't make a case against me at first. He was using X's addressed post and didn't respond to the addresses. The second time it looked exactly like he was doing the same thing. Inactivity was a problem, but one I think was the least of his problems at that point. Not paying attention to the game and being an active player in it, that was a biger problem.

f) You attack Wall-E when he attacks you. You back off when Wall-E unvotes. When Wall-E revotes, you attack him again. It looks like a steady pattern of OMGUS, and this is backed up by your own words when you later say things like

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess.

Wall-E didn't sufficiently attack me to begin with. I wouldn't have given as much of a damn if he would have actually made a real case against me, but he

didn't

. He unvotes and apologizes for being worthless up to that point, so I back off in the hopes that maybe he'll get his act together and play like a normal person. Then he promptly votes for me again, and as I've already stated, with his lack of stated evidence and lack of response to my responses, looked like he was doing the same damn thing again.

3) Your tendency to back off when it was getting close to hammering. Your iso post 73-77 is still a very suspicious series of events to me. You've asked me to read the context, I've read the context and am still unsure why someone with no real alternative suspicions would unvote, and then why they would revote within the very next few posts. What was it that spurred your unvote? What did he do in the next few days to undo that good and cause a revote from you? I think the entire event is much more likely you as scum trying to distance yourself from what you would know was a townie lynch if you were scum.

I backed off when we were close to hammering was because it looked like Wall-E was going to actually respond to our case against him. I was still very certain that we'd end up lynching him, but if he was actually going answer to us, I figured we should give him a chance to. Then he whips around and does the remarkably dick move of refusing to address our questions ("defending myself is secondary to lynching scum, which you are, Idiotking!"). He wanted me to explain away his points against me first.

Look at who was on the goddamn chopping block at the time. Should he have been demanding ANYTHING?

So I revoted. Later, when he could be arsed to actually build up his case against me, I responded to it dutifully, since it seemed at last as though he had some semblance of a case against me. But I absolutely defend my actions here.

The second time this happens is in iso post 122, where you say you are up in the air but would lynch Wall-E first chance you got. Your explanation is that you wanted to end the day but Wall-E was not cleared in your book. To me - that's still an unsatisfying explanation. Rarely is it pro-town to want to lynch someone who you are up in the air over the first chance you get. I simply find the explanation where you are scum more likely here.

To be honest, I wasn't completely up in the air. My first suspect remained Wall-E. A good part of what I was up in the air about was that I was sure I personally wouldn't be able to get anything more out of Wall-E, but that maybe I could get more out of Sajin if he were pressured. So I was considering pressuring Sajin more to see if he'd break. But before I could decide, we were hit with crunchtime, and I had to go with my gut: Wall-E.

The third time this happens in iso post 131, where you write that any lynch is better than no lynch. I think this is a poor excuse.

Doesn't make it any less true

If we had a confirmed cop would you prefer to lynch them rather than a nolynch?

This is an exception. Of course I'd rather not lynch him, but to be honest, have you ever seen a situation in which a confirmed cop was at L-1?

Or even a believeable claimed cop?

See above.

Would you hammer yourself rather than no lynch?

Done it, would do it again if I figured it'd help the town more. At the time, though, I admit that it was a mistake.

I suspect the answer to those questions is no, and rightly so. Masons are a significant advantage in this game and the claim deserved more than I'm going to vote SOMEONE, no matter what. Again, if that's your explanation, so it goes, but to me it is much more likely you are scum and you were trying to grab a mason lynch without taking the blame for it.

If Lurker was indeed a mason it would have confirmed yellowbunny and legitimized everything they'd done. If he was scum, yellowbunny would be scum. Information

would have been made available

. Not exactly perfect, but it's information, and I still hold that information is better than no information.

As for your addressing my accusations of tunneling, I think perhaps I don't have an accurate definition of tunneling. I'd always thought that tunneling meant assuming that one person absolutely has to be scum, to the point of seeming to have knowledge he shouldn't.

[Idiotking]

Also, to expand on the Mason issue, I believe it, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yellowbunny has been pro-town. Lurker has been anti-town. They're pulling each other apart, and are winding up somewhere in the middle, such that it could go either way. So while it is a believable claim, it is

just barely

.

[Idiotking]

According to the Wiki:

"Confirmation Bias or Tunnel Vision is when a player becomes convinced by their own arguments by virtue of how long or how strong they hold them. It is a form of Logical Fallacy, much like Appeal to Probability but applying to the person who makes the argument, not their audience.

It is not always a false assumption, but it can be blinding to new or better options that come along, because they do not match the player's "pet theory"."


Hrm. Maybe we're both wrong. I think your definition was a little bit closer, though.

[Idiotking]

Anti-town? How so?

From what I can see, lack of posting great substance, lack of argumentation, lack of pressuring people you consider scummy, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure everybody who's voted for you at some point had their reasons. You yourself said you were trying to come back to the game in full force.

[Idiotking]

What do you mean he didn't sufficiently attack you? One thing which struck me about your play against Wall-e is it was pretty obvious after a bit that Wall-e was not doing a good job of making his case clear. Rather than try to get him to clarify so you could respond properly, you either blew him off or attacked him.

He didn't make a case against me, that's what I mean by he didn't sufficiently attack me. We're talking about the very first vote against me, remember. And excuse me if I don't have the infinite patience you seem to have. I'm rather happy I'm mortal, and when another mortal does a whole lot of stupid crap, I get pretty fed up with it.

I find your answers in here very odd.

Let me ask you this -- if you had a cop who claimed person A was town (and that person A was under suspicion), would you think that lynching person A is a good idea?

If person A were the only option, or we were at crunchtime, then yes. We'd once again give a little bit more legitimacy to the cop's statements, as well as have new suspects; odds are, at least someone on the wagon was scum, and quite possibly more than one. I fail to see what you're driving at. This belief is not a scumtell, is it? It's not something related directly to this specific game, it's a belief about the whole game of Mafia.

[Idiotking]

I wondered if you were just saying this because its honestly what you believe, or simply to justify what you said about lynching Looker.

QFT.

We have to make our own minds up, of course, but never forget that just because someone says it's their opinion doesn't mean it necessarily is. There's no reason why IK as scum couldn't say that it's just his policy. (same with many of the 'my playstyle' tells)

Keep in mind that there are more games than just Election Mafia to go on.

[Idiotking]

Serial, you said you had no follow up points against me, but I'd still like for you to go further. If you're not satisfied with my defense, then explain why it's not satisfactory. Obviously your vote is still on me, so apparently it was not satisfactory in your eyes. Why not?

[Idiotking]

"You're scum, and here's why"
"Ok, I take your evidence and try to show why I'm not scum"
"Ok, I take your response and show flaws in it"
"Ok, I take your response to my response and show why there aren't any flaws in it"
". . ."
"So am I cleared?"
"No, I think you're lying"
"Ok, why?"
"No particular reason, I just do"

Uh huh.

[Idiotking]

Perhaps, if you've reached the end of the arguments against me, you should go after someone you suspect to be my partner, then? If you really think I'm scum, then I have to have accomplices. Since I know I'm not scum, I'm pretty sure at least one person you'd go after as my "accomplice" will be town, and it'll show by their reactions. Seriously, you can keep going farther, if not with me directly, then with people you think are associated with me.

[Idiotking]

Craplogic no, but I'm disappointed by the fact that he's content to just say I'm lying. What's it with people reading too much into my sarcasm posts? But anyway. StrangerCoug, what's your in depth opinion of my case, since now you're voting for me? Do you have anything to expand on what Serial has had to say?

[Idiotking]

EBWOP: Nice trying to get suspicion off you with the post after that.

And I'd like to point out the fact that he's obviously not going anywhere with me as it is, he's said it himself. I'd rather he advance his case against me, but since he can't do it directly, he should try to find who I'm "partners" with. How am I trying to get suspicion off me if I'm asking him to find out people associated with me?

[Idiotking]

This is the point where you say my question is WIFOM, and then don't post for days on end. I really think you should chime in more.

[Idiotking]

Boom desu?

[Idiotking]

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea as to why X has clung to me in this manner. While I've defended myself to the best of my ability, clearly X seems to want to drive the final nail into both of our coffins. So be it. If you guys decide to lynch me, do so quickly, because I don't have the patience to wait this out any longer.

I am a townie. This claim means absolutely nothing to you, nor should it. But now that it has been clearly stated, I would like to have "I told you so" rights in the future.

X, while I agree with your sentiments, you must realize you've just killed us both. By making it seem so damn clear that there's a connection between us, you've gone to spectacular lengths to get both our heads on a pike. If you're scum, I pity you, because when I go down I'll be dragging you to hell with me. Funny, though, normally scum don't cling to a townie when they're

not

under severe pressure.

Serial, I would honestly love to continue the argument with you. I found it extremely enjoyable, if relatively brief, and it was highly engaging. I am sorry that you don't think there's sufficient amounts of evidence to go on any longer. I also am sorry to hear that your case has devolved into "well, the way he explains it, he's townie, but because I haven't got the last piece of killing evidence, I just have to believe he's scum". Truly disappointing, but apparently you've decided to cling to it. Lamentable, because all your efforts will be wasted once I'm hammered. But oh well, live and learn.

StrangerCoug, your lack of sufficient reasoning for your vote troubles me. Serial's case has run its course, and only

now

you jump on me? I think this is a case of opportunism in its most pathetic form. And listen: asking for Serial to find connections between myself and others (such as with me and X, apparently) is

NOT

asking for him to move his attention away from me. It's rather the opposite of that; it's an excuse for him to advance his case against ME<---- I don't see how that could possibly be seen as trying to remove attention from myself. That interpretation is either halfway-thought-out or completely intentional and utterly retarded. I'm saddened.



But meh. Defending myself any longer is pointless; not only is there no new evidence against me to defend myself against, it is now clear that Serial's and StrangerCoug's opinions of me were a foregone conclusion. And now that X is hurling himself at me like this, anything I come up with to get him off me will seem to be distancing, which is clearly seen as a scumtell. So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunate, but to be expected, I suppose. With Wall-E dead, I suppose I'm the next sacrificial lamb.

HEAR THIS, THOUGH, PEOPLE! I AM STILL VERY GLAD WE LYNCHED WALL-E!!!!!!!! Even though he turned out town, he didn't look like it, and while he was alive, he was annoying as

hell

.

[Idiotking]

The post is just really bad. Actually almost regardless of alignment I think.

Idiotking, saying things like this

So be it. If you guys decide to lynch me, do so quickly, because I don't have the patience to wait this out any longer.

and claiming at, what, L-4, is absolutely not pro-town. If you're a townie, for god's sake you shouldn't advocate for your quicklynch.

Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, but under normal circumstances a townie wouldn't have someone else clinging to them like this, nor would it be impossible to defend themselves against the cases on them. I ask you, what further defense could I provide now that I've already responded to

everything

put forth against me?

"I told you so" rights are annoying and meaningless BULLSHIT and to give that as a reason for claiming vanilla "which means nothing" is just utterly ridiculous.

The "told you so" rights thing was kind of a joke. Sorry if it didn't come off that way, but I guess I just have a strange sense of humor. As for claiming vanilla, I might as well do so now, considering the fact that if I

were

at L-2 or L-1 it wouldn't help me any more. What is the most common thing for scum to fakeclaim and not risk getting counterclaimed? Vanilla! So a vanilla claim is absolutely utterly meaningless in ANY situation. I had the same sentiments when Wall-E claimed vanilla, and nothing has changed now that I have.

This self-destructing behaviour is consistent with the loverclaim in election mafia and a comment of yours about making yourself suspicious to find scum on day 1 in this game. Self-destructing screws your team, though, not just you. So I really hope I'm wrong about you. Sigh.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing further that I can do. If I can't defend myself against the indefensible "lie", and I've got someone hanging on to me like X is, then my situation is quite simply hopeless. The

most

I can hope for is for someone worse to come along and screw up epically.

[Idiotking]

IK - I've told you that my vote stays until I find a more convincing case. It's not a foregone conclusion at all, and never has been.

Maybe foregone conclusion wasn't the right term. I meant that my defense has done essentially nothing to remove your suspicions, so I'm stuck in the same general situation I was to begin with, only now I have no hope of further responding to your accusations.

The recent episode with X slightly made you more scummy, but made X significantly more scummy to my eyes. As I said in my post, I can see a situation wherey ou would be genuinely frustrated and feeling helpless as town, but I can't see any reason for a town X to post his last post. It makes more sense to me if he's your partner, obviously, but he might be just being opportunistic. I just don't know.

I agree, I don't know what the hell X is doing. I know I'm town, so regardless of X's alignment,

why

is he sticking to me? If he were town he should know that he's not doing me any good, and if he's scum he should know he's going to go down in flames with me if I do get killed. Unless... unless he knows that I'm more likely to get lynched today, and when I flip town, his connection to me will be a nulltell, and would actually make him look very un-scummy. But that's mere theory. Other than his connection to me, he hasn't seemed particularly scummy.

But you also need to look at the game as a whole as town. Say your lynch was inevitable (which at 2 votes is slightly melodramatic atm)

I'd figured by now you'd know that melodrama is my handle

You still have the advantage of a)still winning if the town wins and b) knowing you're about to be vindicated.

For personal skill and experience as a player, if I get lynched as a town and the town wins, it still won't satisfy me. I won't be satisfied until I actually complete and win a game without dying, and having actually contributed to the success. And vindication didn't help me any with Election Mafia, so I don't figure it'll help any now, lol

So rather than just an I told you so (and that's not unreasonable ) you could also write up who you think was scummy, whether you thought my case on you was motivated by genuine scumhunting or whether I am scum, looking at the people on your wagon or the people who didn't comment much. If you post all those thoughts then tomorrow the town can look at them and know they are honest and genuine impressions and that wouldh elp us greatly, I think.

Also, which sentiments of X do you agree with specifically?

All right. I think you're town. I believe you were motivated by genuine scumhunting, though as I've said, the fact that your case against me petered out is somewhat disappointing. StrangerCoug's opportunism annoys me, and yellowbunny's partner(s) (Good Lord, is this your 3rd partner, YB?) both seem scummy in their own ways, except for the new guy, and just because he hasn't posted anything yet.

If I survive for some time yet, I'll post something more in depth.

[Idiotking]

Funny how it's Ojanen who's freaking out, not me.

[Idiotking]

For explanation, I honestly think X has got it in for me. If you think I've given up, maybe that gives you an idea about just how bad I think things are going to get for me because of his latest post. Seriously, I can't see any way somebody else would get lynched. I'm the logical choice by his latest post;

it is that bad

. Though I suppose you're right, I may as well scumhunt while I'm still alive. Tomorrow I'll get to work on details of my above suspicions.

[Idiotking]

And YB's opportunism strikes. The mason pair is looking the worse for wear now. Actually, ever since the start of D2 YB hasn't looked so hot. More on this tomorrow! TOMORROW, I SAY!!

[Idiotking]

Really, YB, you should wait until I post my actual cases before you overreact to them. Tick tock tick tock.

[Idiotking]

Fully intend to, don't worry. I still think I'm a dead man walking, so I very much plan to do as much damage to the scum in this game as I can, while I can.

[Idiotking]

StrangerCoug, I'd

really

love to beat you to death with the wallposts I've made in my defense which prove that I've fought back, but I don't think you'd get the point.

[Idiotking]

My apologies for tardiness, but I'm having difficulty finding a single block of time long enough to build up my statements. God, I hate graduation. But if all else fails, I'll start doing it in parts and pray that it doesn't get jumbled up at some point.

[Idiotking]

Back at the beginning of the game, we'd seen CUBAREY's scumminess in his opportunism and then lurking skillz. Then he goes completely AWOL, and we get Looker, who shows up at this massive pile of dialogue to work with, and proceeds to do nothing with it. At more than one point he had more votes than Wall-E simply for this reason, and STILL he refused to post anything substantial, or even passingly useful. This will be the backdrop for the beginning of my case, which I will (using Serial's case against me as a template) put forth from the perspective that the mason pair is actually a scumteam.

My case starts with the famous YB mason claim:

@everyone voting Looker: boo, hiss, hiss! I understand why you want to lynch Looker, but you shouldn't do it.

Under normal circumstances, I might want to as well. However, I have an advantage over you all. I know that if you lynch Looker, two things will happen:

1.) Looker will pop town-aligned Mason.
2.) Anyone with half a brain will figure out that I am Looker's mason partner.

I had been trying to persuade people to ease up on Looker as I didn't want to have to do this - particularly due to Sajin's point about PRs. So I tried my best to avoid doing this. I have also considered not saying anything (since I have no frikin' idea why Cub and Looker didn't do more to defend themselves)...but if I don't say anything, we will lynch a townie, and my role will become obvious. So I figure its better to pipe up now, and at least we can have a shot at lynching a scum, rather than doing what I KNOW is a mislynch.

vote: Wall-e

I believe this to be a calculated move. YB is not stupid, we know this, of the "mason" pair she's the more intelligent of the two thusfar. My belief is that this claim was made partially to remove suspicion from Looker and to cause a mass migration over to the Wall-E wagon. In this, it succeeded masterfully. Another reason for this claim is most likely to secure YB's and Looker's position as town, lock it in place, so much so that despite Looker's consistent uselessness nobody has built a case against either of them yet, because doing so would be seen as a scumtell in its own right!

During Night 1, the scum did not kill the mason pair. Even if you take it from the perspective that the mason pair is not a scumteam, that's strange. Why did the scum allow the masons to continue night discussing? There is no logical reason for it, unless the mason pair is actually a scumteam.



That's all for now! Will post more later, this isn't all of my case but it's a start.

[Idiotking]

Kreriov, I don't care that there are questions posed at me anymore. I. Do. Not. Care.

unvote

Vote Idiotking

to hurry along the process.




As it is,

I'm not done with the case

, so if I stay alive long enough to keep working on it I will do so.

[Idiotking]

Unless, of course, I just hammered myself.

In which case, shit.

[Idiotking]

I'd rather not, if I just hammered myself then it's not fair for me to keep talking while I'm being strung up.

[Idiotking]

Oh, by the way.


I told you so.

[Idiotking]

Oh, I'm very much town, Ojanen. Very much so.

[Idiotking]

On a completely different note, Kreriov was actually the hammer, I was mistaken. My vote against myself was overkill :p