Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[mykonian]

/confirm. and nice to see two people that I have already seen as scum. I'll be watching you, spring and ML

[mykonian]

I think GIEFF is the obvious serial killer. He has information, but wants to lynch the mafia!

vote GIEFF

[mykonian]

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

[mykonian]

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.

yeah, yeah, I know. Craplogic and such.

unvote

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

[mykonian]

it is a no, of course. It was a random vote, and it is a random vote. It had the nice thing that it was the second vote on a person, maybe someone was so nice to put a third one on. (yes, you are a nice person dourgrim )

[mykonian]

The only person who knows the SK exist is the SK so wouldn't mykonian calling someone SK on the first few pages hint to him having info about the SK?

this is not entirely true. Not that it matters, do you really expect me to tell you all I know in my first post? I know nothing.

[mykonian]

ok, didn't know it wasn't considered standard.

anyway, it was not a slip, although I can never prove it to you until I'm lynched. It was just an (incorrect) way of reacting on GIEFF confirmation post.

[mykonian]

@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?

to show it was a random vote. Nothing changed in post 55, only my reaction on the fact that the assumption that the SK would know something about the setup was wrong I think I should always appoligize for bad play. It simply is not helping, because people may think you are scummy. Even when it was for a random vote, then you have the right to point out that the reason is wrong.

[mykonian]

It's only been 36 hours, which is why I think active lurking is scummier than just not posting. If you're posting but not providing any content, then it looks like you're posting just to avoid suspicion, as opposed to posting to help the town.

I have heard this before. Pretty much every game that I start from the beginning. I don't like this part of the game. But lets see what I can do for you.



About pantzers early game: it is undoubtely protown. But on the other hand, it barely can hurt scum. I don't know how panzer starts his games normally.

Dourgrim is quite eager to defend my (wrong) random vote logic.

then a lot of talk about GIEFF's "early mafia" too much talk about a little thing, I think.

I don't care if someone doesn't random vote: GIEFF is busy enough. I must say, I like post 54.

Dourgrim and GIEFF are talking a lot, and I can't see the point.

Ting's post 73 is a reasonable voice in the mess before that. I like it. But I have the feeling that is just Ting's normal state. I like it anyway.

[mykonian]

No That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I know his tried to be funny but he let loose a slip.

What was exactly the slip? That the fact that that post said "that it was antitown to want to lynch the mafia"?

If you read it, it says that it is antitown to know the mafia that early.

[mykonian]

Dourgrim is quite eager to defend my (wrong) random vote logic.

This is an overstatement, apparently meant to deflect Panzer's attention back toward me, especially when you follow it with:

Dourgrim and GIEFF are talking a lot, and I can't see the point.

@mykonian: To clarify once again: if all posts in thread were to be taken at face value, your logic had some merit; not a LOT of merit, but some. Since we've had a very long discussion about jokes vs. serious posts, and since you backpedaled after my defense of your logic was shot down unmercifully by GIEFF, why continue to try to draw attention to the conversation?

Because I have no idea why you would try to explain my wrong logic for a random vote.


To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts, as in:

I read this as "As my reasons for voting GIEFF were shown to be faulty and baseless, I've decided to unvote rather than continue to try to defend myself."

However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?

since when is panzer under attack? I think panzer did a good try to get this game active, in stead what you and GIEFF are doing. You are talking about how he changed your name (oh no, how scummy!), and you are making big posts about that stuff. It doesn't get you anywhere.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to

FoS: mykonian

and

vote: Panzer

. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.

Brilliant.

[mykonian]

How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.

I honestly don't know what this paragraph means. No sarcasm here, I've just read it four times and can't decipher it. Maybe I'm just tired, but can you please explain it again?

I think I'm the one that is tired. I'm sorry, but I'm going to try to explain tomorrow. I don't think it will get any better tonight.

[mykonian]

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

You are right. You need to look at what the people assume to see if there is something going wrong.

[mykonian]

Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. It

could

point to scum covering for each other.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to

FoS: mykonian

and

vote: Panzer

. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

My reaction on this part you didn't understand yesterday. While panzer was really starting the game with that accusation of him, you manage to make a scumtell out of it, and one good enough to vote him.

after this, GIEFF votes for a contradiction...

FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim

If someone makes an accusation in the random voting stage, that makes sense, then I can't see how you would exactly pick that person for looking for "contradictions" and "distancing". Abstract terms. contradictions: what do you expect from panzers first post? weak reason.

distancing: nice, early game. But is this the only explanation for that situation? that we are both scum? Two townies make the same posts just as easily. So plz don't look at relations till you know some peoples allignments, then it becomes usefull.

[mykonian]

mykonian, I agree it makes little sense to try to label attacks and defenses as deflection this early in the game. Yes, two players "could be" scum, and therefore their interactions "could be" deflection or bussing, but without any other evidence, that's an arbitrary claim that could be made about any two people int eh game.

What I don't understand, mykonian, is your FoS of me. It's because I voted for a contradiction? Are you referring to my vote of Panzer or my vote of Dourgrim? And what contradiction are you talking about?

I was talking about your vote on panzer. First, based on overall play, I don't have the feeling that panzer deserves those votes. Then I looked at how those votes got there. First two votes because panzer is too aggressive, dourgrims vote for a null-tell. And you because you have found a "contradiction". Like that is a scumtell. You say that two statements panzer said cannot both be true, and so he must be a liar. It is "how-do-I-find-scum-in-three-days" and it doesn't work.

[mykonian]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.

[mykonian]

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

assumptions: GIEFF knows something about the setup.
GIEFF wants to lynch scum.

logic: The fact that GIEFF knows something about the setup makes him antitown. Town doesn't know a thing.
GIEFF can't be scum, as he wants to lynch scum.

antitown + not scum + standard = SK.


But the assumption that a SK knows something about the setup is clearly wrong. The logic part is good. Scum can use logic, but as long as the assumptions are not right, the conclusion doesn't need to be right. And because you don't know a thing in this game, assumptions can be based on guesses.

[mykonian]

doesn't anybody here have the feeling that this is one big overreaction? This is going way too fast. I don't like fast wagons, esspecially not when they are early. Are you really in favor of a panzerlynch page 7? didn't think so...

[mykonian]

doesn't anybody here have the feeling that this is one big overreaction? This is going way too fast. I don't like fast wagons, esspecially not when they are early. Are you really in favor of a panzerlynch page 7? didn't think so...

Do you disagree that your defense of Panzer in post 143 was irrational? Instead of answering my questions and continuing the discussion, you decided to appeal to a broader audience.

I have seen more town lynches for "contradictions" and "lies". Scum wouldn't want to lie this way, town wouldn't. It is imperfect play in any case, but you make a scumtell out of it, and I think that is wrong.

mykonian, how likely did you think it was that Panzer would be lynched today before your latest post? And how likely do you think it is now?

I have no idea. People seem way too serious about it. Don't think you would do it today, but two or three days should be a lot off.

Spring: I do that "helpful towny act" because it is one part of my town play that doesn't hurt if I'm scum. If I believe a certain wagon to be too weak, then I say that: to make that statement worth something, I give reasons. Now try to make something antitown out of that...

[mykonian]

missed that one, sorry. Where did he say that?

in case he stated it as the absolute truth, yes. Otherwise I should look at how he says it first.

[mykonian]

I think I have showed what I think about that lying, and that I have said that a towny had no reason to do that. However, scum would have had no reason to lie there either. At least, when I'm scum, I try not to lie a single time, because it is so easy to catch you then. So I wouldn't understand why any player would lie, and that's why I get to my conclusion that this must be imperfect play.

Panzers accusation on spring seems to come from the fact that he thinks that springs targets are a bit arbitrary. I didn't have that feeling when spring came with that post against dejkha. So I don't yet know what to think about this. If spring is scum, panzer is likely too. That way he could easily have spotted the way she attacked.

[mykonian]

we are talking around each other. What I'm also trying to say, and that should be the answer on post 144: why would panzer be so eager to lie in the half-random-voting-stage? Because I'm so obvious protown, that he must get rid of me? It makes no sense.

and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).

[mykonian]

we are talking around each other. What I'm also trying to say, and that should be the answer on post 144: why would panzer be so eager to lie in the half-random-voting-stage? Because I'm so obvious protown, that he must get rid of me? It makes no sense.

and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).

He already responded to it. Post 161

Panzer didn't lie in the half-random-voting stage. He lied later, but about his reasoning in the half-random-voting stage.

Yes that was the answer I would expect: it was the assumption that spring was scum that would make them town. As the whole post is build to accuse spring, the assumption is that she is scum. Could be a slip though, but it is not conclusive.

So why would panzer lie if it was just a random vote? Scum could easily walk away from it by saying it was only random with a joke. I know it is wifom, but why would Panzer lie? A lie as scum can only be a scumtell if it had use to scum, at least that is what I believe. This lie couldn't even confuse us. That's why I can't believe it is a scumtell.

[mykonian]

plus that people seem to be to eager to vote for this lie. It can't be a good thing that there is noone that says something is going too easy.

[mykonian]

have it your way. You keep having the idea that scum has to fake reasons from there first post. From experience I know that this is not true. But it seems I'm not going to convince you.

I can't imagine that on page 8, everybody would already lynch for a lie for a vote in the random voting stage. That makes that I suspect this wagon, because I think it is to big for the reasons given. I know it is day one, but you can at least try to get a good wagon.

and GIEFF: good call, I'm again being to defensive. Tomorrow I'm quite busy, but in the weekend I should be able to post something about people I suspect. 8 pages reread can't be that hard.

[mykonian]

At the moment, myko's still holding his random vote on GIEFF. Do you mean to keep it myko, or is it still just a random vote?

tomorrow I'm going to try to get some non-random thing going. So yes, it is still random.

Dourgrim and GIEFF.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's

lack of a random vote

till well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

you put your observation better then I would have been able to post it. I was simply annoyed that they seemed to talk about nothing.

[mykonian]

It seems I always think spring scum: one time I was right, one time I wasn't. The way she attacked dejkha, while not being very good is not something I would trust my vote on.

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.

mouthy and being aggressive are two different things: you are being quite defensive. And stop apoligizing for posting, it is a good thing, and the more information in this game, the more I'll like it.

I don't like GIEFF's post 54, esspecially the part where he attacks dourgrims random vote. Reasons given were: GIEFF hadn't voted yet, there were 2 votes on GIEFF and OMGUS. I can shoot holes in such a case...

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke? It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

Vote: Dourgrim

and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum. Strawman (he makes the vote bigger then it is, to make it a serious point against dourgrim)

Then we get the big posts that boil down to the problem of the post above: GIEFF tries to make a case out of it. Dourgrim defends...

GIEFF is quite eager to point out who the lurkers are. Null-tell, but something to remember (it is not really a null-tell, but I like scum to be active)

and you know what I think about how GIEFF tried to make a case out of "lies" and "contradictions". I see a pattern...

Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. It

could

point to scum covering for each other.

really? it

could

also be two townies, and math tells us this is more likely . nulltell.

Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.

you just don't like how I point out that your cases don't exist. There was no big case, and theory tells us that. Then you don't like the theory...

well, we can always random lynch, can't we?

Currently, I'm getting very bad vibes from Springlullaby and she seems to be far more eager then I am.

hmm, we are not going to vote for aggressiveness, right?

Beyond, post 150. He finally says something... He quotes massive posts, with the comment that he agrees. Large posts: yes, content: no. And after he has said little to nothing (really, I can't find much in that post) he votes Panzer. Brilliant.

post 153: more of the same. I don't like it.

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.

Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.

Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.

Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.

vote Beyond_birthday.

FoS GIEFF

(no, I don't like your play)

[mykonian]

I'm confused, are you saying that Beyond's notes are scummy or are you casting a vote out of annoyance? You agree with his assessment of Gieff's case and then vote for him. What am I missing?

the fact that I would like much, much more out of him. He promises big posts, then I would like them to be stuffed with information, not with quotes of GIEFF's big posts. And I agreed on one point with him, but that doesn't mean I like his bandwagon vote (and it was that, because he only stated a few times he agreed, and then voted).

I never said it was a strong case. I don't think there is an obvious strong case available at the moment.

[mykonian]

and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum.

OK, am I just misunderstanding what a random vote is? Dourgrim gave reasons for his vote, claimed they were serious, and made it very clear he thought I was scummy. Does that really qualify as a random vote to you? Do you still not understand why I find lying about the reasons for a vote is a giant scumtell? You can disagree with my opinion, I just want you to understand what my opinion is and why I hold it.

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

since when is this a serious vote? don't make it one.

[mykonian]

since when is this a serious vote? don't make it one.

What? That's about as serious as a vote can possibly get. He legitimately unvotes a player to place that vote and none of his reasoning is a joke. The only thing from that post that I can see as a joke is the "OMGUS" bit, but that appears to simply be tacked on and not the main reason behind the vote.

Why do you think it's a joke?

because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)

But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.

[mykonian]

I'll let Dourgrim field that question. But rest assured, that wasn't a joke. Dour himself admitted that he doesn't like joke votes.

maybe joke was the wrong word...

but the way GIEFF makes this a big vote, and how he after that shoots the vote down again can't be protown.

[mykonian]

oops,

unvote vote Beyond_birthday

[mykonian]

because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)

But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.

But that's the whole point. A vote is a joke only if the

caster

of the vote thinks it is a joke. But based on Dourgrim's reaction, it's clear he did not think it was a joke, and thought the reasoning sound.

It may not have been a vote in search of a lynch

, but to call it a joke-vote or a random-vote ignores Dourgrim subsequent posts, which show that he took it seriously.

that's why I think it is overreacting.

and determining what kind of vote it is can't be done with what the caster says: if he is scum, he will make it stronger/weaker when he needs it. You should determine it by the reasons given. If, on some point, someone gets too close to a lynch, while joke/random/weak votes are part of the votes on him, those persons should be questioned.

[mykonian]

People have presented cases in the thread with varying levels of merit

just tell her that on this moment there is not one that you should lynch a person for.

[mykonian]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

plz read the game, and after that start interacting with people. This just doesn't make sense...

[mykonian]

you don't like his attitude: brilliant.

and his logic makes perfect sense. After you know who is scum when a game is over, you read the game very different. You suddenly see all the scumtells. If someone now told you that lets, say, I was scum, then you would nitpick every post, and sure: you are going to find things that could point to me as scum. However, you would give me a special treatment. You would tunnel on me.

While we only want you to have a open mind when you start the game.

So please read the game.

[mykonian]

then vote me! what are you waiting for?

Maybe it is because you just should reread. If there were any scumtells there, you would miss them. If we told you where to look, you would only find those we told you to look for. Now when you reread with an open mind, you can find scumtells with everyone, and maybe that will help town for a change...

If you think you are also convinced by early posts, just as much as the new ones, then there is still no reason you shouldn't reread.

So if my arguments are invalid: show me. You are making a general statement: back it up. I only show you theory, and I think I'm right there.

[mykonian]

but still your vote doesn't make sense...

now, before I vote you, would you please reread? This is getting annoying.

[mykonian]

mykonian

- His general logic is baseless and stupid.

that hurts...

However, he makes a few good points. For one, I do like his assessment of Dour and GIEFF. Hm.. Actually, his early point was baseless and stupid, but in general, I feel that his defense of Panzer is pretty sensible. He seems level headed in these later posts. However, he votes for me because I make a lot of notes, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. That’s okay though. I still acknowledge and don’t care too much.

I voted you because, while your posts were long, they said very little, and so for the notes: they tell me nothing. But I'm happy that goatrevolt got you to post this. This helps.

Still...:

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.

Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.

Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.

Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.

vote Beyond_birthday.

FoS GIEFF

(no, I don't like your play)

I don’t follow how you agree with me and then vote me. How is annoying>pretending to participate? (I say this because I don’t know a better way to phrase what GIEFF’s later posts are.)

active lurker doesn't mean that you can't be right. Earlier I had brought up why I would vote you, why I suspect GIEFF (I don't know if I did that in the same post, but in general, I think he blows up cases unnatural far)

[mykonian]

For now,

Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

I thought we stopped random voting? The game already started! While you are so annoyed that I want you to simply reread, all you can think of is to vote me because I reacted annoyed! I don't know what goading means, but the word general in front of it already tells you you have to back this up.

I'll believe you at the non-commital behaviour, it seems an easy accusation to make in the start of the game. I've got nothing to go on, and that doesn't help me to get ideas...

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

You aren't defending me, are you?

My case is not baseless, my case is not based on minutiae, my case is not petty, and my case is not blown up unnaturally far.

Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote.

Not a random vote

, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.

Lying about the reasons behind a vote is not minor, no matter what you think about the additional points I raised.

a weak vote, already seen from the reasons, and the timing of the vote. Policy FoS from my side. Did I mention I think you blow up your cases far too much?

Post 244

It's ironic that you yourself are using VERY SIMILAR reasons to call me scummy that I used to call Panzer and Dourgrim scummy. You suspect me because you think that my reasons aren't valid. If they really aren't valid, then from your point of view, I could either be a confused townie who doesn't realize is logic is, or a scum trying to push a faulty wagon (i.e. "faking" logic). So what should differentiate scum-me from town-me in your eyes is whether or not I genuinely believe my logic, which is exactly what I've used to conclude that Panzer and Dourgrim are scummy. Right?

I don't think I got an answer to this. And by ironic, I think I really meant hypocritical. Either revise your own logic, or admit mine is sound; you can't have it both ways.

OK, lets get this over with now.

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

I can't see a towny push a case like yours, and not dropping it on the moment people point out to him that early play, and lies in early play, are not hard scumtells. You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

[mykonian]

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

if you are scum, yes. If you are not, then you have heard that I don't completely agree with the way you play. I think that if those cases were pushed to a lynch, it wouldn't be much better then a random lynch, and I don't want that, while you seem to be too eager to push them.

[mykonian]

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push. And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest. This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out. You simply refuse to see them.

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

[mykonian]

4) A lot of mykonian's behavior seems to be stemming from irritation, not actual discussion at this point. While I'll be the first to admit how irritating GIEFF can be in this game (;)), I think it's important we look a bit deeper than an OMGUS vote, which is what it looks like mykonian's doing.

I think I know where you are getting at. You think I vote GIEFF to protect panzer, to divert attention. I'm sorry, I can't help you there. I believe GIEFF is scummy, I don't vote him for his vote on panzer, I vote him for blowing up a weak case.

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push.

And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest.

This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out. You simply refuse to see them.

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

I disagree on both he bolded points:

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

LAL means lynch all liars.

Thanks

I quote this whole post, so you can see. It is not about the mislynch (good catch, thank you) it is about the hiding behind LAL. After that, GIEFF suddenly needs no reasons for a lynch anymore, as it is the obvious scumtell... But it is not appropriate here.

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points. Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE. That is hypocrisy.

STRAWMAN!!! I said, and I say again, that you should never, with such a case, want to push for a lynch, esspecially if it has been pointed out that there are holes in it. Then it is time to wait, to see if you can get more. Not the time to scream: he lied, he must be lynched!

[mykonian]

zilla, please reread where this is coming from. I have tried to explain why LAL can't be used here, as lieing is not a scumtell here: scum had nothing to gain from it.

It's like you are doing it on purpose... Please finish rereading before commenting on the current game.

[mykonian]

STRAWMAN!!! I said, and I say again, that you should never, with such a case, want to push for a lynch, esspecially if it has been pointed out that there are holes in it. Then it is time to wait, to see if you can get more. Not the time to scream: he lied, he must be lynched!

Which of the four points do you disagree with? Let's actually try to discuss this. If you are town, and you really think that Panzer is town, you should want to convince me of the bogus-i-tude of my case. I am pushing aggressively for a Panzer lynch because I think he is scum. Your "never ever" does not apply.

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum. I thought first your case weak, what you called defending, but you keep hiding behind that case. Keep pushing for a lie that is not a scumtell.

Just because mykonian thinks the Panzer wagon fits that description does not make it so.

Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.

you can't be convinced, as you believe that lie is an absolute scumtell.

@

mykonian

: Your attackon the method he pursues players is flawed. Bad logic=/=scummy. Bad logic that is contrary to your normal way of playing (via, useful meta or proof to the contrary of your vocalized or utilized thoughts)=scummy.

I mainly attacked the way he tries to push his case that is not

that

strong.

Here's something I would like explained from myko: (post 306)

Panzerjager wrote:
WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.


You aren't defending me, are you?

What exactly are you trying to communicate to Panzer here? There's already some discussion about a possible Panzer/Myko pairing. What did you mean by this? When I first read it, it immediately occurred to me that you could be trying to remind a partner not to become too involved in mutual defense.

it was a rhetorical question. I accuse Panzer of defending me. Zilla´s vote is quite ridiculous, her case also, but the fact that she adds as reason: "but mainly because he asked me to" as a reason, it is clear that this doesn'd deserve an aggresive defense. It can't be a serious vote. Panzer is far too eager to prove that he was wrong before.

I find it ironic Mykonian accuses Panzer of defending him, considering he's also covered for Panzer.

I'm not a very aggressive player when I know too little.

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed.

I'm not talking about wiki generalities; I've explained why lying about your reasoning for a vote is scummy way too many times to repeat it. I am not saying "lynch all liars," I am saying "lynch those who lie about their reasons for voting."

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

And what is your case on me and BB? What is so obviously scummy about us? that we don't agree with your "great case"?

[mykonian]

You don't appear interested in reaching consensus with me, mykonian. You just repeat your old points which I have already answered. Which of the four points do you disagree with?

Then I must admit that I don't know what way you want to go with this question.

GIEFF, the main point of the case is that Panzer lied. This is mainly from the start, the confusion if he was serious about me or not. He is not completely clear in this.

But I can't see benefit for scum in this. That's why I think it can never be a scumtell. You argue that scum needs lies to vote for somebody, I say that that is only needed when votes are required to be very well reasoned and strong (not early day 1).

And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.

Scum doesn't need to lie for a random vote. Scum can also point out valid scumtells. The only lie is their conclusion: they catch a towny.

And for the cases on me and BB: they seem mostly induced by the fact that we don't agree with you, with BB the extra point that he also voted and unvoted panzer.

[mykonian]

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

This isn't true in the slightest; any townie can draw incorrect conclusions and set up a mislynch, and lying for scum just puts them on the line and in the open later for searching later. I also disagree with the stance that "there are no good targets anymore," I think this game is full of them. Just about every player could have a rather solid case built against them.

Sorry, this is my bad English. What I tried to say was that scum doesn't need to lie early in the game, because reasons won't be looked at that much, and only in the later game, when targets disappear, they could have to resort to lying.

We agree here.

[mykonian]

And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.

This makes sense if you're talking about distancing, but not really bussing. He's going over the top if he's simply distancing, but if he's bussing, he's doing a killer job of it.

But day one? Right from the start? if panzer came up scum, that would be a little too much of a coincedence, wouldn't it?

if you read Myk in isolation, he's played the whole game defending Panzer.

and attacking GIEFF (but I guess you call this chainsaw defence, you just can't see that I don't like GIEFF's case), and asking you to reread, when all you were doing was accusing everyone without knowing.

[mykonian]

@mykonain.

ONCE AGAIN, Panzer's lies were not just early in the game, but throughout the thread. And ONCE AGAIN, scum does have reason to lie. And ONCE AGAIN, which of the four points do you disagree with? Your failure to answer or even pay attention to what I am saying is distracting for both me and for everybody else

We are not getting there by SCREAMING.

GIEFF, I don't understand what those four points are, you are talking about, and that is why I said that I didn't know what way you wanted to go with that question.

On the lying: as far as I recall, it is the contradiction between first a serious vote, and later making it a half joke vote, am I right?

Then we know what we are both talking about.

Then the following, because we clearly disagree there: you say lieing is a universal scumtell, because scum needs to lie for their reasons.

You get to this, because you say that no matter what, the conclusion must be wrong: the one they vote is town.

So you prove that the lie is in the conclusion, but it is the logic that leads to the conclusion that you are testing for lying.

and scum doesn't need to lie about that logic. They can point out scummy acts done by town, because town is not perfect, and still end up with the wrong conclusion. So, esspecially when nobody knows a thing, and the standard of the votes is not high, it is useless to lie with the logic, not only with the conclusion. That's why it is bad play, no matter what allignment the liar in this case has.

[mykonian]

OK GIEFF, I understand what you are saying. For town, reasons are part of hunting for scum, for scum they are an excuse to make their votes.

Now we are not talking about lies anymore, we are talking about motivations behind a vote. Can you prove me that Panzer his motivations for his vote on me are not for hunting scum, but are an excuse for a vote on me? (I think I know where this will go, but when it is 23.40, I'm not going to try)

[mykonian]

I don't know if it is the time, or just because GIEFF was very clear, but I can see where he comes from.

Tomorrow I'll try to get my thoughts together.

Goodnight.

[mykonian]

unvote

I still have the feeling something is wrong, but the way GIEFF puts it, I can believe that.

sorry for this short post.

[mykonian]

zilla, I'm going to do that tomorrow: I'm very tired now, I can barely keep my eyes open. I won't forget.

[mykonian]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

While you were attacking me, your vote didn't follow. I reacted to your aggressiveness by saying something like, "vote me, if you are so sure", so we don't get the attacks from you until the bandwagon is filled enough that there is no risk for you anymore.

My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.

It was for a random vote, nothing serious. Just wait what happens night 1 before we get serious talk about a SK. I never intended to get big talks about it, but other people are making something out of my words that they were not.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

no reason for you to take a random vote reason serious.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

when you listen to it as were it serious.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

I put in a logical error in my random vote, I expect people to vote me. Someone goes even further and attacks me for the SK business: I didn't expect that. But anyway, nothing unnatural there.

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

First time I read this. Sorry. But don't expect from me that I put myself in the spotlight. Attention on me is not usefull and antitown. So asking for it would be foolish.

My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.[/quote]

[mykonian]

The defense of Panzer beyond his vote for you is still unnatural. I'll ask you the same thing I asked goat: what is your current view of panzer, all things considered?

I don't know anymore. I can see GIEFF's points, I can see why I also could not believe GIEFF.

By which I mean you never actually attack anybody, but play devil's advocate, and worse, you're actually playing "angel's advocate" by being defensive of others rather than offensive. It's a common day 1 scum tactic, it builds trust.

must explain why people don't find me as scum, it is part of my early game town play too. I don't think early cases good soon. Till I see that the game is getting inactive, I most times don't like the cases on people, as I can see flaws in them, and as I can see people going to easily with it.

I know this is not the completely right play, but I can't see myself playing like you, or panzer. Acting very aggressively right from the start, just to see what stays, who believes them. Hope someone makes a mistake under the pressure you bring.



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

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.[/quote]

[mykonian]

sorry, all under the line is zilla's

rest from me:

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

this is what I reacted on. You were so sure, but left the vote away from me. If I'm campaigning for it, you should show that.

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

This is where I said we should lynch the SK,

if we know him!

People argued that an SK shouldn't be lynched. I think theory proves that it gives town more mislynches, and I told that. But the fact that we don't know if there is a SK, we shouldn't lynch based on that. Lets wait for a few nights before we bring this subject up again...

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

when you listen to it as were it serious.

Au contraire, I'm well aware it was made in jest; however, the method is suspect.

explain the method of a joke please...

[mykonian]

I agree with Goat, I don't think lynching the person with the most ties is a good thing for 2 reasons.

1) That person is clearly me and nobody wants to be lynched.

2) How many ties I have does not make me more or less scummy by itself. It has 0 impact on what role I have.

Although, I do disagree, You do get info if I'm town. Not just if I'm scum. I actually think you get more info if I'm town.

3) lynching someone gives ties to that person, if we don't let people hop on for no reason, if there is some kind of criticism. It simply is not a usable argument.

Please don't use it, it only increases mislynches. I don't believe that two people can be even likely to be scum. Saying that means you have not thought over everything, as there are always differences. Resorting to this kinds of arguments means you are not looking closely enough at the facts (arguments against people are always different, so the chance that people are just as scummy is neglectible), and still prefering one lynch over the other. I think you all can see a scum-tactic.

[mykonian]

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?

almost. I thought you shouldn't believe in it. But now I can see how you could... Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

[mykonian]

It's the very rare game that day 1 lynches scum, so lynching for information is perfectly valid.

zilla, I had some theory in (I thought) my last post about this. Can you agree with that?

[mykonian]

That was not what Mykonian said.

Yes, it was. Just in other words., as I said.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e.

I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote

I took myko's meaning to be - "Me and others have been pointing out to you time and time now the weak points in your case, but you're just ignoring them and pushing on anyway." Not that you don't believe to see your case - but that you're refusing to look at any point that disagrees with it. There's a fairly subtle difference. The last sentence in myko's post which you declined to include in your quote would suggest so.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

You simply refuse to see them.

Myko is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, in which case I've read his post wrong and take all this back.

Ting, you are completely right.

On this moment, I feel BB is mostly a lurker. Not really lynch worthy, maybe just someone to lynch in case of a very short deadline (that we don't have yet, do we?).

[mykonian]

On this moment, I feel BB is mostly a lurker. Not really lynch worthy, maybe just someone to lynch in case of a very short deadline (that we don't have yet, do we?).

What do you think about the reasons everyone else is voting him? Have you even read the case presented against him and his response to that case?

I have, and I can't remember a thing about it. I only expressed what I feel about him. Something for tomorrow to answer this question good.

[mykonian]

I have lost my stance on you and panzer, ting has actually little to do with it. I want to be able to tell something about that again.

I tried to tell you what I meant: I have tried to point out the weak points in your case, you went on with calling it a lie. That was what I saw as scummy: you pushed your case with an obvious but not well thought over scumtell (lieing), while you didn't want to talk about the holes in your case.

But then you got to the motivation business, and that is something completely different then pushing a case for lieing. I can see how you get there, and you don't need the lieing part that hard anymore. Usefullness of lieing (the hole) is not a part of the case anymore.

I want to take the time before I decide how I should look at your case: the weekend. Ting has not brought in a new thought, he only clarifies my poor english to you, I'm afraid.

Does this post help?

[mykonian]

ok:

panzer

.

He starts aggressively, but made something out of my vote that wasn't there. He was serious about a jokevote, that he knew it was a jokevote. When asked why, his answer boiled down to a gut feeling. That would be the town explanation of it.

GIEFF's last attack doubts Panzers motivation for it: why already a gut feeling about the first post? Was there an other reason for his actions? The fact that he takes some time to find the answer to our question, "why?", until he found an answer that a few of us could believe.

On the other side

GIEFF

: he points out this wrong thing in panzers play. He makes a case where this "Lie" is a part of. Most of his case is shot down, but GIEFF can't let go of the "lie". That should be where we lynch Panzer on. He pushed this too far, I thought, and after I point out what he is doing, he comes with something new.

While he was looking from the outside of panzers actions all the time (there is a contradiction), he goes inside now, and tries to find a town motivation for it, and says he can't see one. Smart move, as scum, because you can't prove this wrong. Doesn't mean that it can't be right.

But what made this change in GIEFF's argument? He says he was doing it all the time, but before that post, his case consisted out of the "lie", and now it is the motivation behind the lie. He pointed out something was wrong, but when I said it wouldn't make sense as scum to do, all he did was say it didn't make sense as town either.

So here we are: GIEFF's case, how hard it is to disprove now, still doesn't explain why Panzer must be town. But on the other hand, Panzers play makes absolutely no sense, and what I think to know about him, that is not normal for him. Would anybody care to look at this and see what the answer at this is? Do we get any information out of this, because I only think I see that they are likely not both scum, but even that could be possible.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, the quotes exactly point out what changed, and that your early arguments were not the same as the one I agreed with.

Your case consisted out of the lying of panzer, and a few minor points (I forgot them, sorry), in the end, only the lying remained. The small points proved to be close to nothing.

With reasons, I think about things that logically make you vote. About motivation, I think what you intend to do with your vote. There is something different there. While you started with accusing Panzer of lying, and doubt his reasoning, you ended with doubting the intention of his vote. You started with saying that the cause of Panzers votes was wrong, and you ended with saying that Panzer could never have the intention to win with town. I can see why you see the last, at least I can't disprove it. I can't see how you would try to lynch based on LAL.

There is a difference to me GIEFF, and nothing tells me that you already thought this way. And there is no real prove against Panzer, except the fact that weird move of his, that has not yet an explanation.

[mykonian]

man, it took me an hour to get that post through: but I have forgotten to post about some things.

BB: I don't support lurker-lynches. Calling you only a lurker means that I think people should get more before I want to lynch you. I think they go for the easy target. I was calling you an easy target, not useless. I probably worded it bad.

Goat-Zilla. Goat seems very protown to me, and Zilla seems to see all the small things. Zilla's tactic would be good, assuming perfect play. I don't know how perfect Goat is.

What changed my view on GIEFF-Panzer is that motivation post by GIEFF. It kind of removed the only point that made my view, the fact that he pushed for a lynch based on LAL only, even when it didn't apply.

[mykonian]

I've finally been able to nail Zilla on the contradictions, strawmen, hypocrisy, and deflection that she has been using this game (admittedly, others have been here first). It has made this game a living hell trying to argue with her, and I wrongly brushed it off as playstyle differences or her simply being unable to comprehend my posts.

Guess it had to end this way: Zilla tunnels on you, tries to find something in all your posts (and if you look for something, you can always find it in this game), and on a certain moment, you decide that this all can't be true, and that she must be scum.

If you look at how I played while Zilla had me as target, you can see I was not that interested. Keep in mind that her arguments are not strong. However, that doesn't mean that Zilla can't be useful to town: Just look at the reactions of people to her. As I already stated, I don't think she has brought anything up that makes me think you are scum, goat, and this reaction makes you likely town, it looks sincere.

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

[mykonian]

Goat-Zilla. Goat seems very protown to me, and Zilla seems to see all the small things. Zilla's tactic would be good, assuming perfect play. I don't know how perfect Goat is.

I am perfection incarnate.

On a more serious note, you mention "Zilla sees all the small things." What this really means is that she makes mountains out of molehills. She takes small things, rips them out of the context they go with, amplifies the newly constructed strawman as something scummy, and then attacks it.

We know: would scum be so obvious? If I'm scum, I would never use something that obvious, people are quite sensitive, and when their ideas are used wrong, they find out soon. Most "strawmen" I have seen were wrong reading, making it a little too strong, and then the person whose words were used reacts aggressively. I'm a bit scared of these kinds of arguments.

[mykonian]

But on the other hand, you don't bring anything more with your case. Sure, it is easy to point out that her accusations are wrong, we all know. She picks, and then something comes out: I don't think anyone else has thought you scummy because of Zilla. But do you really think that contradictions, strawmen, etc. make a good case? I have seen too many mislynches that way. It is simply too easy for scum to sit back while townies don't understand each other.

I'll answer this, but I want to first turn this around and ask you a question: What constitutes a good case? You don't consider lying a good case. You don't consider contradictions a good case, or strawmen, or deflection. How do you catch scum? What makes up a good case?

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I'll tell you right now, I KNEW she was misrepresenting me, and I even had a hard time picking out exactly what it was she was misrepresenting me on. None of this was "obvious" at all.

I meant the fact that you knew. You can always see that your feelings are posted the wrong way. That's why I would never use it if I am scum, it always comes out and someone is going to make a big show out of it, but with the problem that I'm also in it. To you it is obvious that something is going wrong.

[mykonian]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

Can you give a specific example? Something in this game? Who do you suspect right now? You've been sitting on the fence for a while, and a lot of your posts seem wishy-washy.

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

But on the other hand, Panzers actions cannot be explained, and I don't like that. Means something is wrong there.

I'm sorry, could you tell me what "sitting on the fence" means?

[mykonian]

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I just gave you scum motivations for her actions, and likewise showed the lack of possible town motivations. Thoughts on those?

I know I can't argue with this, but I have seen this too often: two townies that go after each other, pointing out that the other doesn't understand them the right way. I believe you think you have found that it can't be true, but I also believe she thought she had found something. She points out a lot of small things, and so do you, and suddenly we have 4 votes on Zilla.

To summarize. Give me a specific example of a single post or statement Zilla made that was blatantly scummy and something scum wouldn't do because it would cause them to get caught? There isn't one. None of Zilla's posts are scummy in isolation. You're trying to say Zilla wouldn't do obviously scummy things. I'm saying nothing she did was obviously scummy. Everything is pieced together over time based on the increasing realization that her actions cannot make sense from a town perspective.

I'm using a fallacy, I see now. "Too scummy", and I think it can't be. I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong argument here. But "everything pieced together" makes me cautious. I'm sure people would "find" a lot of small mistakes if they took my posts apart (and Zilla kind of did that), but would that make me scum?

and now this: Goat, protown starts the action on Zilla, you made the case, and now this. Sorry if I sound defensive again, but I can't believe that there is no scum on that wagon.

[mykonian]

I DON'T KNOW!

There are things wrong, I feel. Things go unnatural, but I can't put my finger on what it is. The BB wagon, the easy target. The fast shift to Zilla based on the fact that people grow annoyed with her. You going hard for a weird play of Panzer.

I don't see a pattern in it. I can't see who are making mistakes and who are scum.

I'm sorry, but till a deadline, or till there is a solid case, I'm not so certain about things as you seem to be GIEFF. I'm not a person to make the easy choices.

[mykonian]

I don't like myko's newest posts. No time for actual reread now, I'll do it later.

I would love to be a day cop too.

[mykonian]

That I don't like my posts too, that they probably don't help, but that it is what I think, what I feel.

I feel I'm just guessing around, and not finding scum, while I feel that something is wrong. But I can't determine what is imperfect play, and what is scummy. How can you try to explain Zilla-Goat, GIEFF-Panzer, the amount of interest for BB, without imperfect play?

[mykonian]

I don't think you'll ever really know with certainty that you're right in a mafia game. Mafia would be a pretty boring game if there was a way to tell for sure if someone is scum.

I know, that is not the problem, but there is nothing to go from now. There is no basic information that can function as a start for your thoughts. Till you have an investigation, a claim, a lynch, a kill: nothing is known, every thought is based on assumption where you have no way of knowing how good these assumptions are.

I could see a way for Zilla to be scum, but I can also see her as town. What makes the one more likely then the other?

I can see GIEFF scum, and I think he is on top of my list, but this would imply that Panzer is town, and when you try to test that with his posts, GIEFF-scum is not that likely anymore. And the fun is, this one is not solvable, I think.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, I already know you have no problem with choosing. You are so confident. What is the trick?

[mykonian]

ok, I can do that, I think.

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.
Zilla Replacing dejkha: annoying nitpicking and the next easy target.
Dourgrim: flying under the radar to me. Should have looked at him closer
GIEFF: my best bet now. He exited his case against panzer with an unfalsifiable argument, and was on both BB and Zilla's wagon in time.
Goatrevolt: protown
qwints Replacing MacavityLock: plain lurking, no read because of that.
militant: no idea where he stands, was late on BB.
Panzerjager: I gamble now he had just a shaky start, and that it will never be explained. Although he has not been so prominent lately.
springlullaby: I always think spring scum. Seems to take weird stances on purpose, and on the other hand is easily active lurking.
subgenius: LURKER! This was the only one that I needed to look at the posts he made to know what he did. You should do it too...
ting =): protown. I usually agree with his posts.

vote GIEFF

Based on assumptions, the things I have been talking about and hoping Panzer really made a mistake.

Now, you know where I stand, I hope.

[mykonian]

I believe you are voting me because you just realized that you still aren't voting for anyone and you want to appease my charge of you being wishy-washy. If the reasons you gave for voting me were genuine, you would be suspicious of others who exhibited the same behavior.

I believe that you are right, when I state that my vote is a gamble. I don't have a solution for GIEFF-Panzer, I have to assume that one of the two made a mistake.

Then we have two very weak tells: that you are on two wagons I don't like.

and last, my "solution" to your argument that I could believe.

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

[mykonian]

I think that Mykonian is being too cautious in this game.

Big fat meaningless FoS: Mykonian.

let's make a promise: day 2 will be better. It always is. One of the reasons I like replacing in. You have evidence to work from, and luckily, day 1 will give a lot of information. Only subgenius, qwints, spring and militant will be big holes, I think.

[mykonian]

and I thought I was lazy today. Just a small post to explain myself again.

Goat, mostly I'm hiding behind the too scummy falacy because I don't like how the bandwagon of Zilla grows. It simply seems too easy.

[mykonian]

Yeah, GIEFF has the same problem that Zilla also has. Failing to agree makes you a target, like I found out both ways. After rereading, I'd like to ask why Zilla attacked me and goat in the start. And why she has the feeling that a whole scumteam is needed to get her this many votes...

[mykonian]

hey, Militant! welcome back!

good post though, I agree with your question on GIEFF, again a: "I don't agree with you and here you are scummy"-vote.

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a towny because the game dies before we can change. Now we have reasonable activity to change if we want to. If we wait a few days, all we can do is lynch her no matter how or what she claims, just because nobody wants to prolong the day more.

[mykonian]

congrats GIEFF: again you find something to make me look scummy. A few "slips". Well they aren't. It is just the way of saying it (really, do you think I would slip up that often, in the same way?). The way Goat and Zilla misunderstood and accused each other, made me think that they could also be town that were just on the wrong track because of all the small things that Zilla finds...

Then the claim part: if she is town, and we know it after her claim (I don't know, but her claim could explain everything, etc, it is a possibility), we got to have the possibility to change the votes to someone else.

So, most times I have used it, it was a way of saying something.

BTW, GIEFF is doing the same with dour again. Picking out small things, contradictions etc. This is scum looking for a case, or town misunderstanding a lot of the things posted... In either case, dour doesn't look bad to me, mostly it seems GIEFF reads him wrong.

[mykonian]

Then the claim part: if she is town, and we know it after her claim (I don't know, but her claim could explain everything, etc, it is a possibility), we got to have the possibility to change the votes to someone else.

That's ridiculous. Why would you even talk about the possibility that we KNOW she's town after her claim? What could that possibly explain that would make us so sure?

There are two possibilities: she is scum, and we don't care what happens, as long as we lynch her

she is town, and we want to have the possibility to change bandwagon.

a claim is partly a test, do we still want to lynch her after it? If we think the second case is possible (and that is why I talk about it), we should be able to choose afterward. If we think she is scum, there is no problem, the lynch will get there. When the game dies, it is easiest to lynch the person with the biggest bandwagon (zilla).

conclusion: I want her to claim soon, otherwise we might lose the opportunity to avoid her lynch, and that is never a good thing. We should be able to change the lynch based on what happens.

and I see you have found another scumslip with panzer: congrats. Care to talk about your Dourscum-slip? I dare to say that we could even find a scumslip in Goat's post, while I think him protown.

[mykonian]

about springlullaby: could she be replaced?

[mykonian]

I think it is bad to lynch without a claim. I think it is also bad to lynch someone because people can't think of anything other anymore: town got to keep it's options open. (I've been lynched in two games after each other day 1, while there was a lot of doubt if I was scum, but that I was the only option after 20+ pages...). If zilla is scum, we should lynch her, that is the easy part.

Qwints is almost right, his sentence only needs an "in case".

the game dying: getting more inactive, less new thoughts, slowing play and tunnelvision. I feel it is starting. 20+ pages is too long for some people. add to this the chronic inactives and it becomes a problem.

hypocritical is not quite the word, the problem I try to point out is that it is quite easy to find these slips. Even if that person is town. And because we have seen a lot of slips here and there, I think it becomes too much. I feel you are looking for very small things to make cases that normally wouldn't be there. All because you assume that townies can't make them just as easily.

about SL: annoying. Very much. Can I propose a policy lynch? There are worse times to do it then day 1.

[mykonian]

All because you assume that townies can't make them just as easily.

This is where we disagree strongly. Townies CANNOT make slips of that nature just as easily, because they don't have any extra information they have to pretend not to have.

ok, to state it different: you can find them by town just as easily. You have pointed two (or three?) out in my posts, and all were just ways of saying things, nothing conclusive...

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when I would not lynch him based on the evidence.

I wish I could lynch two or three people instead of just one. I don't get why you don't see much evidence of scummy behavior in the last 28 pages.

I don't get how you think the evidence

proves

that people are scum.

about springlullaby: could she be replaced?

I don't think we can replace SL, as she continues to pick up her prods.

She may be active on the site but that is irrelevant is she continues not to post in this game in particular.

about SL: annoying. Very much. Can I propose a policy lynch? There are worse times to do it then day 1.

I am strongly against a policy lynch on the basis that she is chronic lurking. I don't know but if SL's lurking is being caused by business in real life that has no influence upon her alignment

agreed, it won't be better then a random lynch. But on the other hand, what do we lose when she is a towny? close to nothing. Otherwise scum will just leave her in the game, and we'll be sitting here with an inactive player.

[mykonian]

Agreed. I don't want you to bring up the Dourscum thing again unless it is part of a bigger case and it is accompanied by you voting for me. It is upsetting me, and I do not play logically when I am upset.

I think a few people would be pleased if you returned the favor, and made a case not only based on slips. Not accusing you, just pointing out that you exactly say what I think about it.

[mykonian]

I'm just skimming and crtl+f-ing my name and answer that waiting for you to claim.

and when are you going to start to help us? Please tell me how that is close to being protown...

Now claim Zilla.

this is true though.

[mykonian]

I still don't want Zilla to claim, but we have 7 people demanding she do so, so she now needs to.

why not? it seems like people want to lynch her? could be usefull to find out if you mislynch a powerrole, wouldn't it, GIEFF?

[mykonian]

thank you GIEFF, I agree with you: let's make it even more official

unvote vote Spring

I think I have told you my view on policy lynches, the fact that you lose little means that a mislynch is not that big a problem, and when spring comes with excuses like this... well, let's try to see a scumtell in it.

and even if spring doesn't become the lynched, this vote can only do good, I think.

[mykonian]

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

[mykonian]

So you no longer want Zilla to claim, mykonian? If we aren't lynching Zilla today, she SHOULD NOT CLAIM.

You are all treating a Zilla-claim far too casually. If you don't want to lynch her, then don't make her claim.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

[mykonian]

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies. And mislynches of powerroles should be avoided even more. The fact that you don't see the

need

for a claim means to me that you are not that concerned about losing a powerrole.

I definitely want to see a claim before we lynch somebody. I don't want to see a claim because I would rather lynch B_B, as I have said numerous times. I find it hard to believe you are really so confused as to think I want to lynch Zilla without a claim. As I JUST said, it looks like Zilla will be the lynch today, so that even though I am personally against a Zilla-claim, she should do so.

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

This is the second time you have been SO convinced I am scum that you have called the target of my aggression townie. You've done it with Panzer, and now you've done it with Zilla. I think these are slips by scum, revealing more than you should, but you have claimed that you only called them townie because you are so certain I am scum.

It is again a way of speach: you don't really want a claim, that's why I think you scum, and then I make that colored sentence, questioning your motivations.

If you were SO sure I'm scum that you are making nested assumptions on other players' alignments based on your assumption that I am scum, you would be voting me, and trying to make a case on me to get others to do so, too.

This is strawmanning. Calling someone scum casually doesn't mean he is absolutely so. I called you that way to express my thoughts about that action.

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

It seems there was a majority for a zilla-lynch.

"WAS" being the operative word, considering your switch to springlullaby.

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

[mykonian]

Mykonian, you may have answered this already, but why do you want Zilla to claim if you don't think she's scum?

because there seems to be a majority for her lynch. And I would like a claim

before

the lynch...

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the contradiction I pointed out in my recent post?

not impressed. GIEFF nitpick against his "targets", goes way too far, and then you get accusations that he is tunneling, as his behaviour against someone doesn't make sense. I think that explains the contradiction partly.

On the other hand, to lie as scum that way makes little more sense then it does as town, isn't it?

[mykonian]

But you don't seem to think it necessary, while there are enough people that want to lynch her.

As I just told your good buddy Panzer, Zilla is at L-4.

sorry, I thought we were close already, with two votes still waiting (there was a post about that I thought)

Because mykonian has done so TWICE now.

congrats, picking that out of my play and making it the only thing people see. No context, nothing.

Here is some context for you.

Post 352.

Panzer's towniness is now only implied by you being scum.

Post 727

That is the third time you have called Zilla a townie, mykonian. Another reason I would rather lynch B_B today.

No, I'm calling you scum. Mislynches are not the target of townies.

There. Those are the two times you've done the same thing. You called a player a townie, I called you on it, and your excuse was that you were only calling the player townie because you were so sure I was scum.

based on the assumption that you are scum, they should be town. There is someone that accuses, and someone that defends, and I didn't like those accusations. They looked scummy to me.

Does anybody buy that mykonian can be so sure? Would anybody else do the same? i.e. be sure enough that someone you are attacking is scum that you assume everybody that person attacks is town? What if you had said something like this:

Post 582

So, yes, I only vote my biggest suspect, even when

I would no lynch him based on the evidence.

So even though I am SO SCUMMY that you are making nested assumptions about who is town, you would no lynch me based on the evidence? Something isn't right here. Which is it? Am I so un-scummy that you would prefer to no-lynch me, or am I so scummy that you are sure about the alignment of Zilla and Panzer because I am attacking them?

that quote tells my stance on the cases there: I think them weak. Normally I wouldn't lynch on that (the "no lynch" was a typo, the it should be "not lynch". Sentence runs a bit better then too. Funny, you are the first that misrepresents that )

and are you seriously telling everyone that I am so sure of something? LOL! I simply make, based on assumptions I mention (you are scum). Last time I heard you it was good to call someone scum, bad to call someone town. Suddenly it can go this way around too. GIEFF needed something to attack me...

And I wasn't counted... Plus that I never believed the case on Zilla. I already can make a case on you for strawmanning, nitpicking (strech) deflection (I don't got an answer for that last post, but you attacked me because I posted the word "mislynch") on only this post! I see the case Goat made to be just as easily on town. Those arguments just come up too easily against an imperfect player (that we all are).

Oh, you CAN make a case on me, can you? Go for it.

NO, I've already shown what points in that case are scummy, but I have also expressed the belief that those kinds of cases don't work.

[mykonian]

ok, I read it wrong the first time, obviously.

But again, if I was scum, and I would try to look as protown as possible, I would refrain from changing stances a lot, and I would tunnel more, just to avoid this problem. If you change stances as scum you can wait for this.

But on the other hand, as towny, if you think things over/reread and you come to a different conclusion, wouldn't you change? Tunneling is antitown.

The thing that bothers me most is the fact that you can be called protown for not having a stance on the rest of the game...

[mykonian]

More things to add to my list in Post 681:

• I don't like the fact that mykonian has now called Zilla a townie for the THIRD time
• I don't like the fact that mykonian wants a Zilla-claim even though he doesn't think she is scum

1 You are twisting my words, I have correctly explained what it meant, and why I posted it that way. 2. Has nothing to do with my suspicion, has a lot to do with the amount of people that want to lynch her. I thought there were enough, it seems not... Sorry.

[mykonian]

Mykonian's first vote on Birthday is extremely perplexing. He has said absolutely nothing about Birthday before voting him

so suddenly it is wrong to look back and find someone scummy that you didn't look at till then?

Most of his game past that point seems to be at the exact same level. He focuses on GIEFF because he says he doesn't buy GIEFF's case on Panzer lying about his voting reasons. There's this little perplexing bit as well:

Why I think you are scummy:

you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.

I can't see a towny push a case like yours, and not dropping it on the moment people point out to him that early play, and lies in early play, are not hard scumtells. You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

His heirarchy of what is good and what is not good is odd at best. I can understand how it gets less good when the case is based on a weak vote on someone, but OF COURSE GIEFF thinks Panzer is scummy. It'd be horrible if he had a case on Panzer and thought he was town. Adding in that he lied about why he voted, and then admitted to it, I don't see how that makes GIEFF's case on Panzer weaker.

I argue here that stupidly following LAL is bad play. You got to see what happens around it, something GIEFF clearly didn't do. He only screamed that we should lynch Panzer because he lied.

Here, Mykonian quotes an apt post by Militant about his case on GIEFF.

Mykonian never really brings up how Panzer's lie isn't a scumtell, instead he pretends it's been proven because "it doesn't benefit scum," according to his speculation. That's a pretty WIFOM assumption to make.

yes WIFOM. The way to make correct points look wrong...

It is this simple. With the current meta, a liar is often lynched. Lying therefor is not proscum play, as it gets you lynched. So follows that scum doesn't lie if they don't have to, and this was certainly a case where panzer didn't need a lie, and so is lying a nulltell in this case.

There's this contradictory stance, where he says

and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.

But previously, he said:

I think I have showed what I think about that lying, and that I have said that a towny had no reason to do that. However, scum would have had no reason to lie there either. At least, when I'm scum, I try not to lie a single time, because it is so easy to catch you then. So I wouldn't understand why any player would lie, and that's why I get to my conclusion that this must be imperfect play.

I'm sorry, but what is the contradiction here?

However, that doesn't mean that Zilla can't be useful to town: Just look at the reactions of people to her.

are strange; he hasn't provided any of his analysis on "the reactions of people to [me]." I'd like to see what he thinks I've exposed via reactions to me.

how do you expect me to find something out of the reactions of people to you if I don't know what your allignment is? In any way, you have done a great job of getting everybody to talk about you. That could prove valuable.

This post is noteworthy for this:

I think I have been pretty clear: the actions you made against Panzer felt to me like you wanted to take out an aggressive player early based on one of his mistakes.

This is the first mention of GIEFF's motivation being to take out an aggressive player early. He didn't say this before, I don't think this was part of his case at all.

that's right, this is my view on his actions, and my view on his motivation. I attacked him because his case didn't deserve the attention GIEFF wanted to give it, and because he wanted a lynch purely based on LAL.

Here's where he says that if I don't claim, we are lynching a townie. Possibly rolefishing? He does not support the wagon, but he wants a claim anyway. What a strange position to take.

call it rolefishing, call it "doesn't want to lynch a PR without a roleclaim"

Oh, here's a telling bit:

agreed, it won't be better then a random lynch. But on the other hand, what do we lose when she is a towny? close to nothing. Otherwise scum will just leave her in the game, and we'll be sitting here with an inactive player.

He seems to try to justify lynching spring as a townie because we "Don't lose much" and that scum will keep her in the game if we don't lynch her. It seems to set up for the case that she's actually scum, and that's why she's not being killed, while he just wants town to think scum is keeping her alive for being quiet. I can't read this without being suspicious.

I know this isn't accepted. Bad play is not enough for a lynch, because "she is just as likely town as scum". But mislynching a very important player is way worse then mislynching a useless lurker, even if the chances are that the important player is a bit more likely scum.

of course this works only in the start, when you know that the more important players can win the game for you later. Lynching someone because he lurks in lylo is suboptimal play. That's why I argue that there are worse times to do it then day 1.

This is quite interesting, especially "Tunneling is anti-town" and "The thing that bothers me most is the fact that you can be called protown for not having a stance on the rest of the game..." That's quite interesting coming from someone who has only attacked GIEFF and hasn't offered a solid stance on the rest of the game, other than Panzer me being protown most of the time.

and that is exactly the reason why I'm not going the same way on GIEFF as GIEFF attacked Panzer, because that can't be the correct play. And BTW you forgot a few persons. Goat-town, Ting=) town, militant/subgenius slightly scum.

[mykonian]

Why do you no longer believe it? Did you forget that you pretended to be convinced? It can be hard to keep lies straight sometimes, I guess. Better to just vote based on who you think is really scum. It's a lot easier when you don't know everybody's alignment.

GIEFF, the mess between you and Panzer is in any case wrong play. Then it is simple: do I think it more scummy for someone to lie about his first vote, or do I think it more scummy to go after that and try to lynch that person on LAL (only later you came with the unfalsifiable motivations-argument).

1 You are twisting my words, I have correctly explained what it meant, and why I posted it that way.

That doesn't change the fact that you called her a townie. And I still don't buy your excuse.

No you have found your miracle scumslip. It is basically the same as with Panzer. You think you have found something scummy, while in this case, there is no correct explanation why scum would do it, and after that you close eyes and ears and your only thought is how to lynch me based on that. That is not town play, that is simply looking for something that can be turned to a scumtell for a case on a towny.

I thought I already voted you, didn't I? And that case, I'll make it. But not now.

----------

And yes, I read your posts, I am not responding to them because, again, I am not going to waste my time.

This seems to be working so far, but it can only work for so long. You will have to play the game at some point.


I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you. And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.

2.1 is not an exit clause. It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.

If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right? Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.

Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.

Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.


----

GIEFF (spin-doctoring, out-of-context nitpicking, misrepresentation)

I am sick of this. I have not misrepresented anything on purpose. Make a case on me. Ask for help from B_B and mykonian if you like. If you can't make a case(as mykonian couldn't), then stop throwing out these generic statements. If a lie is repeated enough times, it will seem true.

Link to posts where I nitpick out-of-context or misrepresent, and I will show you why either you misunderstood or I did.

I don't want to see anybody accuse me of nitpicking or misrepresentation again without making a solid case, with links to posts and quotes that show exactly what you mean.[/quote]

[mykonian]

Sorry, messed up in the previous post, all under ----- is from GIEFF... Sorry.

I started with a case against GIEFF, but I know I can't finish it today, too busy. Maybe tomorrow.

[mykonian]

mykonian, are you happy with your vote on springlullaby? Why haven't you mentioned her again since voting for her? Having trouble fabricating reasons?

would you stop trying to put ideas in the minds of people by using rhetorical questions?

I have clearly voted her because she lurks, but can't be replaced as she picked up prods. That were my reasons, that are my reasons. And seen her little activity, little has changed about my reasons. Part of my vote was also to get the town talking about something new. Goat did this, and I have tried to explain to him why it could be a good lynch, even if the odds of spring being scum are even to a random lynch.

But thank you for telling me:

unvote vote GIEFF

not that I think that my case (that will come) will do any good, because panzer won't read it, and believes zilla is scum, GIEFF won't agree, Goat has already found scum, zilla thinks I'm scum etc. And everybody thinks this day has gone on for too long, and thats why we will never change our lynchee, even if we wanted to. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[mykonian]

ok, I am not close to finished, but it is probably to big for some people already: here are page 1 to 5 about GIEFF.



This starts with his doubtful actions while attacking Panzer. Panzer votes in post 36.

in post 67, panzer calms down. Till that point, I have seen not a single attack from GIEFF on Panzer, he was more questioning Goat and Dourgrim.

in post 82/83 GIEFF still attacks dourgrim, summarizes the activity in the game (he accuses a few people of (active) lurking)

panzer is not mentioned, while it is clear GIEFF read the complete thread

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way

he

said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

Revisionist history. Here is what you said:

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

Are you claiming that this post by you was a joke? It sure looked serious to me.

Suddenly that "he" became "I" in GIEFF's mind...

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

and after that, the big word, panzer LIED!

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote

Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

goat points out, this is GIEFF's reaction, with a counterargument:

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

[mykonian]

Also, after reading Mykonian, I still find him scummy, but I do have to say that reading him in isolation wasn't as damning as I thought it would be. I'm still HIGHLY critical that he was pushing for a policy lynch on SpringLulliby. That would be a waste of a day unless she was scum, and he doesn't feel she actually has a good chance of being scum. It's basically a call to go to night, and it's doubly beneficial for scum because, if they know SL is town, they're going to bag a free townie for the day.

Also, I saw that GIEFF called Mykonian out on his vote on SL, and Mykonian changed his vote to GIEFF. When I read the baiting in GIEFF's post, I thought to myself that Mykonian was going to switch, and he did.

I don't know what spring is, and I think it likely that I won't know for a long time. Simply because lynching a lurker is not accepted, and scum is probably not stupid enough to kill someone who helps them. Plus that there is very little scumhunting from Spring, which means that we will lose little if she proves to be town.

and of course I switch, GIEFF has been first choice all the time, a few posts ago, I thought I was still on him, but it proved not to be, so I voted him now.

BTW, what did you think about that post I made about early-game GIEFF?

[mykonian]

Lurker lynching would be acceptable if there was no activity and no valid targets; as it stands, there are many valid targets, heated discussion, and many cases that are well established. I'll admit lurking scum would get away with murder here, but you advocated lynching Spring even when you felt that GIEFF was likely to be scum. That makes no sense.

in a game where the activity was lowering? I think it made perfectly sense to get some attention on a lurker, maybe even some real pressure, but in any case talk about the usefullness of a lurker-lynch (something I believe is not too bad)

[mykonian]

I find scumlinking to be a fairly useful technique early on. It certainly isn't a perfect tool, but it often comes up with solid tells.

The amount of reading in this game is just ridiculous. I don't like panzer and dourgrim's implicit claim, however, that those with a lot of content are anti-town.

you are trying quite hard not to post too much...

[mykonian]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

Keep dreaming, it is not going to happen. Like we are going to lynch someone else then Zilla...

[mykonian]

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

BB is looking much more scummy then, his attention goes to the people that are already voted. Bit bandwagony, then. What he brings up against GIEFF makes me think that I could be right about GIEFF, and he has a reason to go that way, in case GIEFF is going to be lynched.

I think little changes about Zilla, then.

So, I won't vote Panzer, I could vote Zilla, if needed, but only on BB I have serious suspicions (in case GIEFF is not scum)

[mykonian]

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

I've read this a few times, and I'm confused at what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that I think that a jokepost means that there can't be a scumtell in it? The scumtell isn't the fact that it was or wasn't a joke-vote; it's the fact that Panzer lied about it.

and panzers lie is supposed to be that he votes serious over a jokepost from me, which is not a lie.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Now that you realize you have made a mistake, do you think you could consider revising (I guess I should say re-revising) your opinion of what my case actually was?

you are doing it again, the part "for wanting to lynch mafia" is the important part. He says I show a wrong intention there. I already posted that, you didn't want to see it.

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

This is very difficult to understand. I think the language barrier is a lot wider than I realized up until this point. Are you trying to say Panzer wasn't really lying?

no, this is partly the time. Yes I'm saying Panzer didn't lie, you misrepresented into a lie.

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote
Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Yes, it very much follows. And again, this was practically PROVEN long ago, to the point that even Panzer agreed. Why do you still refuse to?

because it is not right. He voted me because he thought I showed that I didn't want to lynch mafia. He didn't vote me because I thought you antitown. This is twisting Panzers words.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt?

Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

What the hell? So you did see that post? And you are still arguing this? Your case on me is that you think the following quote is NOT Panzer saying that you called me anti-town?

Ridiculous.

Yes, He says that I call you antitown for

scummy reasons

(the fact that you want to lynch mafia)

and stop hiding behind: it happened so long ago and it was resolved. That's what happens in a forum game, we can read back and see what we can find. I think you continiously misrepresented Panzer, and build a case based on that that floated on the word LIE. That is scummy.

[mykonian]

If I work from the assumption that GIEFF is scum, then Panzer is most likely town. And while BB has had not a good start (the panzer wagon... later the vote for zilla on little reasons), he makes valid points against GIEFF later. Zilla is simply annoying in my mind. Looks too much on little things, but at least has not gotten anybody too close to a lynch by this.

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

If I can't convince you I'm not scum, that's fine, but PLEASE don't play this way. If you are town, we lose your scumhunting abilities completely, because your whole outlook on the game will be skewed by the fact that you are so sure I'm scum.

that was the second half of the post: where I assume you are town, and end with BB likely scum, for given reasons. You cut out that piece of the post on purpose, I think, to be able to make this point.

[mykonian]

and the other part is just as important in my view on the game.

GIEFF, I know I'm not a great scumhunter, so of course I keep doubts even if I think someone is scum. Guess it is inexperience, but most times I can't see a difference between scummy play and imperfect town play. Your play however, does fit in with classical scum: take out small bits, twist them a bit, point out how they are scummy, use a "big" word for it and hope it carries a weak town to a lynch.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town,

for simply wanting to lynch mafia

. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

do you see the difference with:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.

[mykonian]

On the other hand, this whole thought is based on the fact that GIEFF is scum. If he is not, then he could be right about Panzer, but I don't think this likely.

BB is looking much more scummy then, his attention goes to the people that are already voted. Bit bandwagony, then. What he brings up against GIEFF makes me think that I could be right about GIEFF, and he has a reason to go that way, in case GIEFF is going to be lynched.

I think little changes about Zilla, then.

So, I won't vote Panzer, I could vote Zilla, if needed, but only on BB I have serious suspicions (in case GIEFF is not scum)

I REALLY don't like this. He suddenly says BB is scummy if GIEFF is town, but he buys his reasoning against GIEFF, and says that he considers it validation. He then says he would possibly vote me, though he doesn't find me scummy, and that he suspects BB only if GIEFF isn't scum, yet he also says that he doesn't suspect Panzer entirely because he thinks GIEFF is scum. That makes no sense. If GIEFF is town, that should implicate both panzer and BB.

you are right, I should reread Panzer, I've got too much in my mind that he is town.

Mykonian's next post; I could have sworn Mykonian agreed that Panzer lied.

Your play however, does fit in with classical scum: take out small bits, twist them a bit, point out how they are scummy, use a "big" word for it and hope it carries a weak town to a lynch.

Why is Goat absolved from this?

I had the feeling Goat didn't tunnel that (in the past)[/quote]

[mykonian]

GIEFF, read that quote this way too, I think there is no language barrier that does this:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town,

for simply wanting to lynch mafia

. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

do you see the difference with:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

and because panzer has stated that he voted me because something in the post showed that I was scum, that I was not that interested in a mafia lynch. That's why I think you misrepresented that post.

I have never said that Panzer voted you because you said I am anti-town.

That is the entire point, and you fail to see it. Is this the language barrier? Or are you just refusing to see my point? You are arguing that I said something, but I never said it.

Please try to understand my point. Your vote was for the contradiction (lie) that Panzer knew I was joking, but still took the post serious enough for a serious vote. You say this isn't possible. I think it is. I was joking, but panzer thought that inside that joke, I showed that I was not interested in lynching scum. And since this is the basic point against panzer, and panzer seems to be endangered species again, I think it is good we talk about it.

You also ignored most of my Post 822. Ignore, ignore, ignore. And continue to hammer the same stale, obviously wrong point about my case on Panzer that was 20 pages old.

I didn't react on the whole post, of course. That wasn't needed. You pointed out for some points that they were not scumtells. They weren't, it just showed that I had read that. If you notice, they talk about more then one post. The interesting parts, where I think your thoughts go the wrong way, I reacted on.

[mykonian]

if panzer really took my post serious, while it was day 1, first post, and with completely insane logic, then that was a serious overreaction.

[mykonian]

I'm sorry GIEFF.

unvote

[mykonian]

ok, after recent changes, Panzer became more likely scum in my mind (too much talk about you?) based on early, and late play.

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

[mykonian]

unvote

I'm interested to see who you want to pursue with your vote, now that it is freed up.[/quote]

Good that I have a weekend for that: you have the three names that are most likely to be my choice.

[mykonian]

The fact that GIEFF is more likely town after this, makes the possibility that BB is scum also bigger (see earlier post about that). Qwints is also not strong.

What? Why am I more likely town now? Because you have been convinced that you were misunderstanding me, or because you feel it looks too scummy to continue to pursue me for something that happened so long ago?


Sorry if you think this is continuing the argument, but I don't; I feel this is legitimate. If you focus on just one player for the majority of the game, you shouldn't drop it instantly just because Panzer tells you to.

No because Panzer tells me that you were right (and he is kind of an authority, because it was all about him), and the main argument I had against you was that it was wrong: that you made the contradiction. Now this is not what happened, I have no case against you, and that's why you shouldn't be scummy in my eyes anymore.

[mykonian]

qwints, if you want to play the game, play the game please, no matter what your role is...

vote qwints

[mykonian]

Panzer-town implicates myself heavily

would you please not do that? it is probably not true anyway. You would have taken an enormous risk as scum. Plus that you were right.

[mykonian]

OMG Goat! Panzer is never going to read this, and think about our replacements/lurkers...

ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.

and Goat, why a FoS in this time of the day?

and come on, do you really expect someone to find the "dourscum" mistake. You just read over it, looking for obvious logical/grammatical mistakes.

[mykonian]

ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.

If your opinion of my post is "small arguments with Zilla that make up my case against her" then you didn't read it. I unvoted. Do you have no reaction to that?

I did it in parts, I didn't think the zilla part interesting. I think your unvote was a good thing to do. There are more scummy players around then "constantly-doesn't-understand-me"-zilla.

BTW, GIEFF, I thought I had answered it, the post didn't come through I guess, or I didn't hit submit or something.

it was something like this:

panzer confirmed that you weren't lying about him. That means a lot of your posts are scumhunting/getting town to share your view. Those are protown things to do, so you are protown.

Or very, very good scum More likely town is the best way to put it.

[mykonian]

BTW Goat, how can you play with such win loss ratings as scum? Why would you show them? I should have asked you earlier, but doesn't that get you lynched sometimes?

[mykonian]

BTW Goat, how can you play with such win loss ratings as scum? Why would you show them? I should have asked you earlier, but doesn't that get you lynched sometimes?

It hasn't. I show them because I love statistics.

I've had people who have played in previous games where I was scum attack me in the next game based on a "too townie fallacy." I've never had it actually garner any support.

tip: don't play newby games

Zilla: where to start? I think I'm doing the best I can to get a view on people and to tell the other people what I think. I won't go looking at all the small scumtells that I can find with practically every player to show that I'm "scumhunting" because it won't be usefull. You find exactly the person that you already thought scummy.

[mykonian]

thank you for calling me a lurker, but I would look at yourself first. I think I have shown what I think enough, to not be called a lurker. I may not have found scum, like goat, GIEFF and Zilla claim, but at least I participated, and I discussed. Now before you start the lurkerhunt, why shouldn't we lynch you?

[mykonian]

Did I miss something? and yes, I object to be called a lurker. I just don't want to be one, and I really try to participate in games (altough a few weeks ago I had some motivation problems), just to avoid getting called a lurker.

And then you, the person that has absolutely no right to accuse people of lurking, come here and tell me I lurk. Could you point out why? Because I absolutely don't like that label.

[mykonian]

yes, although I'm a huge fan of long day 1's, this has gone on long enough. Tomorrow we might have trouble finding the information back that we created now. Can I propose that everyone posts his top three scum, and we base a lynch on that?

I'll go first:

Qwints first: basically no read on him, does little, votes for biggest bandwagon. Could be that he is lazy town, but in that case, how much do we lose with a mislynch? Qwints is basically a scummier SL, same argument counts.

BB next: His Panzer vote wasn't strong. I don't know why he keeps the pressure on GIEFF, while Panzer made clear that GIEFF didn't lie, and therefor GIEFF must have acted protown.

Panzer last I guess: Really OVER agressive in the start, I simply cannot see that as good play, while I thought Panzer was a good player. And the obvious: "You don't see me back till we lynch somebody" doesn't help him either. (I already start thinking: but why would scum do that? Guess that the too scummy fallacy is at work again...)

[mykonian]

unexplained rise in suspicion of Panzer solely because he now claims to understand GIEFF

misrep. Panzer confirmed that his early play was as GIEFF showed it. And it is not solely, as you can see in my post: it is also this attitude of his during the end of the day.

Asking for me to claim without wanting me lynched

If someone is close to getting lynched, I want a claim. It looked like there was a majority for a lynch.

calling Goat pro-town with no evidence

Do I need that? Anyway, I feel he has done some scumhunting, he is reasonable, and I haven't been able to find anything unnatural in his play.

wanting to lynch SpringLulliby despite the plethora of more valid targets...

mmm, I don't see Spring in my top three... I already showed why I wanted to open that possibility. Maybe only to talk about it, but at least it was something, as activity dropped then.

[mykonian]

Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.

This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?

[mykonian]

Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.

This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?

No. Notice the use of the word

clear

. None of my suspicions are clear because I am confused after 37 pages.

Did you actually read my post?

How would we get information on today's lynch target if we had a no lynch? I'm not stupid. I don't want a random lynch because they are pointless and help scum. With more town than scum, the chances of hitting town are greater so it is not advantageous to randomly lynch. I wish to end the day because all the confusion and indecisiveness that thirty seven pages of one day has created are playing to the advantages of scum, myself a case in point. That also explains why I don't know exactly who to lynch.

I read your post, I think you didn't completely understand the motivation behind the one where I asked for three people. I want to see if we can force this day to an end by just looking who the most people think suspicious, and that way find a lynch most of us can agree on. Even if your suspicions are not that clear, would you name them?

[mykonian]

Actually you are right, upon verification, although I think you are at the lower participation side of town, it's not very just to call you a lurker.

I suspect that there are very few people on the high side . But you are right, I should have participated like Zilla, goat and GIEFF.

But don't think for an instant that I have 'no right' to accuse people of lurking.

you are right, shouldn't have said that. textbook example of a personal attack I was annoyed, but that is not an excuse.

[mykonian]

B_B, mykonian, Panzer, and Zilla are my 4. qwints could be on that list too, pending his response to my question.

mykonian's 180 still seems way too abrupt to me. I know Panzer himself just admitted I was right, but he had ALREADY admitted it, many pages ago. mykonian ignored it then, and he ignored it every time I brought it up subsequently.

Can I miss things too? I couldn't remember the original. and I know you quoted it, one sentence that would prove that Panzer said you were right. I did' that then, because I thought: "Panzer can never have said that, it must have been out of context"

[mykonian]

of course, I shouldn't have played this way, tell me something. I should have checked where that quote came from, to verify that in context it meant the same thing. I should have stood open to the fact that Panzer thought you were right, and that he admitted to have seriously overreacted on a post in the random voting stage, something that is simply not normal play. The fact that he seriously thought I thought you SK is still hard for me to understand. I don't know how someone based on only what was posted could ever come to that conclusion.

So yes, because I simply couldn't understand it that someone would say something like that, the discussion dragged on far too long. I didn't want to keep my case consistent, I thought it unbelievable someone would say that in such a situation.

It was ridiculous, but I didn't intent it to be.

[mykonian]

zilla, stop doing that please. This is as subjective as it can be.

The information was available, I didn't use it (not on purpose). The way Panzer said it now was direct enough to wake me up. My whole case on GIEFF was that he tunneled with a case based on a misrep. My whole case proved to be not true, so I had to look at the game different. I believed GIEFF scum because I thought his case was not so good that it deserved that attention. Follows that Panzer should have been scum. The fact that GIEFF his case was true, does say a lot about GIEFF, don't you think?

And again: I have done no scumhunting. No I don't nitpick at posts like you do. I'm sorry.

And I want to steer a lynch, you say. Since when is asking opinions to come to a consensus "steering a lynch"? That is simply trying to find something scummy in every post.

[mykonian]

I'd definately like to see Mykonian explain how GIEFF was scum for attacking panzer and panzer was town for being attacked by GIEFF.

are you satisfied with the post above, or should I explain better?

[mykonian]

lol @ crosspost.

Mistaken case or not, you held that Panzer had to be town and GIEFF had to be scum. You tunnneled on him, and you heavily defended Panzer, especially wierd considering his initial attack on you. Suddenly, because you "suddenly realize" (though this happened before, so you claimed) that GIEFF's case was not mistaken, everything changes.

I don't like this hairpin turn. Why was the case so tunnelvisioned that it was based on one small detail?

In fact, you claim you don't "nitpick" but now your ONLY thing you've done for scumhunting is revealed to have been bringing up one person's "mistake" and continuing to push it, no matter how many times it was refuted and explained. And then, once that's refuted, your entire outlook is reversed.

Why was Panzer not scummy before? Are you saying right now that the only reason you find Panzer scummy is because GIEFF turned out to have a valid point that Panzer lied about thinking your vote was a joke?

No, that was the problem, each time I tried to tell GIEFF what went wrong, what the misrep was, he didn't explain to me how I was wrong (He probably didn't understand what could have gone wrong), while I had the feeling he didn't want to get it to that point. That "mistake" was the basis of a case his pushed, so I wouldn't call it a small thing.

And again, I still can't believe Panzer said that. It is not simply refuted, the person admitted to have intented a certain play to be very weird, while I thought there was a normal explanation for it. I felt that an agressive towny (and I expected some agressiveness from Panzer) was misrepresented and attacked for no reason: If a case looks bad to me, I'm not going to look the other way.

and why Panzer is scummy? The first weird play, and the way he acts now, his reluctance to be involved. I thought that weird earlier, and it could be explained as annoyed town. I thought I had scum with GIEFF, and Panzer was seriously not his buddy, so I didn't think about it. Now I do.

[mykonian]

SensFan replaces subgenius, effective immediately.

what a hero! (did you realize our day 1 has not ended yet, and this is page 38?)

[mykonian]

each time I tried to tell GIEFF what went wrong, what the misrep was, he didn't explain to me how I was wrong

This is laughably wrong.

No, that was the feeling I got. For example that quoted post, where a part was bolded. I said you had the wrong part bolded, you said Panzer agreed with it, and that was that. I acted there in the wrong way: but I already thought you were scum.

[mykonian]

no, no claims till now.

[mykonian]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

[mykonian]

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia". I thought you twisted the meaning of the sentence here. This would also have made sense as a play.

But on that you didn't react, you used the post I said was twisted in its meaning by the bolding as prove against my case. You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

For completeness, my explanation of the situation was that panzer did know it was a jokepost, but voted for be because the post showed the wrong intention (not interested in lynching mafia). That would have been normal play, would have given a serious vote, and no contradiction. I thought that explanation fitted nicely, better then yours, that assumed bad play from the start, to make it possible. Can you understand why I was convinced?

[mykonian]

I thought the main point of that sentence that was your prove was "for simply wanting to lynch mafia".

How could you possibly think that?

because, as I said in that post, it explained the situation without any drastic assumptions, so it was likely to be true.

You have never reacted on that, and on the moment that Panzer said that my explanation of that post was wrong, the point finally was resolved. Not before that, GIEFF. You might have known you were right, I thought that also.

It should have been resolved before that. What about this post by Panzer?

He said:

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

I must say that I don't remember this clear. What he admits here, is that is was never a random vote, but a serious one. I thought it was serious because of a gut feeling on my post, not about the "GIEFF is SK" thing. And possibily, as that point is basically where we disagreed, I didn't want to let it come back in one post over and over again. I don't know about this thing, but I know I have skipped points because of that.

[mykonian]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

Maybe I miscounted on Qwints or not but, the actual count should actually have:
4 qwints (Mykonian, goat, panzer, bb)
5 Zilla (gieff militant, goat, panzer, BB)
2 Gieff (bb, panzer)

Nice counting on your part as well, neh?

sorry, seems I forgot you. I forgot SL too, she said she had already posted her top three, haven't searched for it yet.

[mykonian]

vote GIEFF

Based on assumptions, the things I have been talking about and hoping Panzer really made a mistake.

That was nothing new. The last sentence makes that clear. I hope for bad play from Panzer (that he really wasn't scum), and vote you based on that early case. You know just as me that being on wagons that are a bit shaky is not a good scumtell, and I have barely used it. I thought of it as an addition, you try to make it an important part of my case on you.

I wasn't convinced before, and you know it. I did not know which way to go. That was pretty clear. I did not know how to fit that motivations argument in with everything else.

[mykonian]

I certainly don't like Mykonians new tone

Fos:Mykonian

Could you also say what is so bad about it? Or can't I defend myself against GIEFF? I think it is a good think to tell everybody what you thought, why you thought it, and why you acted that way. Where do you disagree?

[mykonian]

If it was "nothing new," then why did you list two new reasons for finding me scummy, and leave out your original reasons in your list of players?

the original reasons were the part "the things we have talked about" I didn't clearly include them, but we were continuesly talking about it, as you proved yourselves

If it was "nothing new," then why did you unvote me earlier?

because I didn't know how to fit in your post in my little theory. Two possibilities: adapt the theory, or throw it out of the window. I told you my thoughtproces in that

If it was "nothing new," then why did you re-vote me?

adapted theory, hoping that you were scum that had a good looking argument (motives) that could not be proved wrong, and could only be proved right if Panzer admitted them, something I thought he would never do. Not as scum, and never as town.

If it was "nothing new," then why did you continue to hammer the same point after I showed you over and over again that it wasn't valid?

same answer again GIEFF: I never had the feeling you wanted to understand that one point, you continuesly brought up arguments that proved not that you were right on that point, although you thought you did. I have tried again and again to get us to talk about that. Well, till Panzer told I was wrong.

[mykonian]

Your defense sucked and as GIEFF has proved you obviously lied.

If I say your complete play sucked, would anyone listen to me? I haven't lied, and saying it was obvious doesn't make it more true. If it is so obvious, show us. Saying my defence sucked is probably true: what would explain someone tunneling too much? All I can do is tell why I thought to be right...

[mykonian]

2. What? Why are you trying to fit everything into your theory? Why don't you objectively look at the facts and then use those to create a theory, instead of trying to get the facts to fit into your pre-ordained version of the truth? This makes no sense whatsoever, and is an admission of case-extending.

3. Hoping I was scum? My argument was ALREADY proved right, as I said.

4. Which "one point" have you tried to get me to understand? The points you have tried to argue against in the past were NOT the same points I was bringing up.

2. I gave two options: new theory, or adapted theory. I have reread then, to see what the most likely explanation of the interactions between you and Panzer were. What if Panzer was scum? etc. I thought the most likely that you weren't both town. After that, I could see Panzer more easily town then you, because your motives argument came quite late, and I didn't like your way of saying Panzer lied, and how that was an important part of the case. Feeled like scum used a towny mistake.

3. See above. Theory's don't give abselute truth. I hoped that I made the right decisions, and that I would be close.

4. The explanation how Panzers lie was not that obvious: the difference between a vote for calling GIEFF antitown, and a vote for not wanting to lynch mafia. I felt Panzer was slightly misrepresented and that this was part of the "mistake" in his early play.

The first explanation didn't make sense to me, but did happen, and you understood.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, I am no longer making a case against you. I explained then, and that is why I explain it again, because it was part of my thoughtproces, that I didn't read your first posts as an attack on motivation, more on the objective "lie". It was part why I then revoted you, like I said then. We are repeating things, because I try to explain to you I have never had malicious intent, and to try to explain that I'm not sure scum for being wrong.

It would be scummy to assume that one of you and panzer must be scum, and then vote Panzer because you look town. It probably can't get worse. That also not what I'm doing. The fact that Panzer admits you are right, means your case against him was true, means that he is more likely scum (as that was the conclusion of the case, and the logic behind it was good. The observation of Panzers play (input) was also correct, as panzer confirmed that.) + the fact that he didn't want to end the day by action, by getting people on one person, but by saying he wouldn't react till we got further.

I don't know what your experience is, but I hate deadline lynches. Too often someone gets lynched that the majority of the town does not agree with, just because that person was the one closest to the lynch, so that town at least gets some information.

I think there are still some people who don't yet have told their top three.

[mykonian]

4 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer, bb)
5 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant, SL)
6 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer, SL)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
5 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer, bb)
2 GIEFF (Panzer, bb)

SL: you said your list was already up: it included three lurkers, do you want me to add them? (giving you 5 votes?) or is one (qwints I assume) scummier then the rest?

I need still from Ting=), Qwints, Sensfan (obviously excused till he has reread).

[mykonian]

I know you explained, it

was

not what I read. I read things about contradictions and lies and how scummy they were in the start. Only later I read things that were about motivations.

ok, you know that is your fifth vote, eh? I hope so you are not scum

[mykonian]

ehm, panzer was not in your top three...

how did panzer become scummier?

[mykonian]

SensFan Replacing subgenius

he is rereading.

[mykonian]

This all started because mykonian said taht he thought it unlikely both Panzer and I were town, and because Panzer looked townie, he concluded I was likely scum.

almost. There was too much weird things going on to make it two townies that by pure chance acted wrong, I tought. That is part one.

Therefor, I didn't think Panzer town from the start of my thinking. I looked at what you and panzer posted, and tried to explain those posts as town, and as scum. With GIEFF, I could quite easily explain them if he was scum. Tunneling on one point is not a hard thing to do, and that way applying pressure on town is a good thing to do for scum. But in that story, Panzer could never be scum, seen the way GIEFF attacked him. Therefor Panzer must be town.

As you see, it is just the other way around. I thought panzer town, because I thought you scum.

[mykonian]

Partly that you didn't try to lie with your case: that means less wrong logic.

This plus the fact that Panzer told that the input for your argument was true, makes that your logic applies, makes that the conclusion is likely true, that Panzer had wrong motivations for the vote on me, and that Panzer is likely scum.

This is about 1 point against panzer, the other is the less then stunning present play.

So, the fact that you are town, makes your case more believable, the fact that panzer admitted he was wrong makes that your case was not based on wrong information.

[mykonian]

Half of those post are meaningful. Sure they are one liners but they DO mean things. So that's BS

I clicked a few links, and basically, Zilla says the same as I said a few posts ago: back those posts up. What you say is quite meaningless without it.

If I say I have a scummy feeling on qwints, you shouldn't listen to me. If I later say "SPINDOCTOR, YOU LOSE" things don't get better. You have been trowing around general statements, suspicions, but have not done your best with backing them up. So you don't participate in the discussion, as your posts don't tell us anything. You are just sitting back, saying things that make you active, it even looks like you are looking for scum, as you have suspicions, but you are not scumhunting this way. You can't find scum this way.

[mykonian]

ok, so apart from early game, that has been overdiscussed, Zilla's links provide a nice view on Panzers play. Main points:

-not backing up his suspicions/general accusations
-therefor not active in the discussion
-admittedly interested in self-preservation, but not that interested in finding scum (shown by the other points)
-not interested in the game, until his name comes up (Ctrl-F your name), so again mainly pointed at not getting him lynched.

I think we have a nice characterization of scum here: they don't need to be interested in the game, they don't need to put time in it to scumhunt, and they are interested in not getting lynched. My top three changes order.

we have the lurker qwints, the active lurker (I think I may use that word here) Panzer. qwints is bandwagonny, panzer shows desinterest in the game and in scumhunting. They are both quite obvious scum to me, more then bb, and they would be my preferred choices.

[mykonian]

Panzer, all I'm asking for, is quotes, after which you point out how you reached your conclusion why someone is scummy. Then everybody can check it, everybody can agree/disagree and you are making a game. If you say someone is scummy, I don't want to go looking for it why you do, you should explain that to me.

[mykonian]

Also read her some more those quotes, they weren't even one liners. They were relevant responses to someone elses post. I seriously think Zilla's case is total crap.

I have read them all. It is not the onliner part, it is the part that you are not actively discussion. You are commenting on the discussion, by making those statements. If you explained, and let people react on it, in stead of making that near impossible, because we don't always exactly know where your statements come from, then you would be scumhunting too. Discussing means talking till you agree, and you don't do that by commenting. That's why I said you had no interest in scumhunting. The no interest in the game was probably planted by the few posts that complained about wall's of text, and how you didn't read them.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, you didn't like my reasoning? I would vote panzer too, have waited for the reason that I thought we should wait for ting and sensfan.

[mykonian]

You said panzers wagon grew without a lot of good reasoning, while I had myself convinced. I thought that weird, and asked what you thought about it. Maybe what I posted till now is not as good as I thought, and it would be nice if someone reacted on it.

[mykonian]

preference: panzer/qwints, then BB.

goat, this is going to take forever, if everybody should send another in. GIEFF, I can vote Panzer too.

[mykonian]

I don't think you can ask a lot from Sensfan, he has a good excuse. He has got to read the game from the beginning, you know, and it is not such an easy game to read. What the others do is not very helpful.

[mykonian]

EBWOP: Sorry for the triple post, but ask yourself this, what advantage do i get as scum from telling everyone I'm not reading and went through and ctrl+fed my once or twice? What specfic advantage does that bring with me telling everyone that I'm doing so. It's not helping me hide, it's not helping me lead to a mislynch. Please tell me how bringing all this attention to myself by threatening not reading and all that to end the day before it gets convolutes it helps panzer as scum?

Also mykonian I'm totally in love with how you dodged this question. Answer please.

yeah, I dodged it. Because I can't answer it. I don't know. It doesn't make sense as scum, and it doesn't make sense as town. But as town, you have the duty to read more then the attacks on you, and as scum, showing that you are honest about your mistakes could prevent serious attacks on them.

and what kind of reason that was against Qwints? Don't you see how scummy he is that you have to come up with a: "It is either him or me"-argument? Bussing your scumbuddy? Why would you vote him this way?

[mykonian]

7 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer, SL, qwints)
7 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant, SL, qwints, dourgrim)
7 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer, bb, qwints, dourgrim)
5 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer, bb, GIEFF)
3 GIEFF (Panzer, bb, dourgrim)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
1 Goat (zilla)

Let's hope we have a scumteam, because the top three thing is not really helping this way.

[mykonian]

I'm ok with it.

[mykonian]

I bet this is going to take some time...

[mykonian]

If there is no cc, I don´t support this lynch anymore.

vote BB

to start something, in case people think we should go for the second place in pseudovotes. We don't want to lynch Panzer just because nobody has a different idea anymore...

and for people that want a case, I have posted it somewhere. Probably posted it just before posting my top three.

[mykonian]

BB is looking much more scummy then, his attention goes to the people that are already voted. Bit bandwagony, then. What he brings up against GIEFF makes me think that I could be right about GIEFF, and he has a reason to go that way, in case GIEFF is going to be lynched.

That was what I was referring too. It doesn't include his wrong vote, and early lurking accusations.

Qwints is high on my list, but doesn't seem to be high enough on the list of the other town. I thought BB would be the most useful vote for that reason, even if he is not my top choice. I believe that a town that has discussed makes more often the right decision then the individual (this has been proven), and I'm not against a bb-lynch, so I can't see what is wrong about this vote. I made that top-three count exactly for the reason that we can get to a decision, so that we are not too dispersed, and then I should follow my intention if I can agree with the lynch.

[mykonian]

A deadline lynches the player with the most votes, right? That's one reason I'm voting you over BB. If it comes down to the wire and you're not a lynch candidate, I'll switch my vote if necessary, but until we're absolutely sure we're settling in for the deadline, I'm voting my top suspect.

I want to give a signal that there are other options. BB is the most logical, because there are a lot who wanted to lynch him. Voting for someone that is not going to be lynched, only gives of the wrong signal: you don't want to come to a conclusion, and Panzer's bandwagon stays the biggest. Something I don't want now.

Also, you went and quoted a potentially obsolete opinion. >_< Is this exactly where you stand on Birthday now? What about his interim posting?

I don't think the "you can't count, here is my top three too", as his top three was posted in that famous percentages post is a major tell. Didn't convince me he was town either. I don't think scumtells minor as that one (he accused me while I had obviously not looked for top three's before I asked for them) belong in a case against someone. So, basically, not much has changed. He has taken some weird stances too, I thought, but again, those don't belong in a case. Making a case completely out of small tells is possible, and it is just as possible to make it on town, that's why I think it is not that usefull.

[mykonian]

I have played one mini with 2 cops, so it is possible. That was named cops and robbers though, and after the game, people said that without that name it could have been a bad setup. I don't think two cops that likely. That would make a seriously powerful town.

Panzer-scum trying to out the real cop can be true. Cops are so powerful, and he can try to out the cop by this. But if there is a cc, we at least know that he is scum, and have an easy lynch, while otherwise we should believe him (again, a cop is so powerful, that it is probably worth the risk).

If Panzer is town after a counterclaim, we have foolish scum, making it easy for us

So I hope Panzer is town, and then we probably won't get a cc, so we can start to look for other lynch targets.

[mykonian]

Wow, a person about to be lynched claimed cop at deadline. I am shocked, shocked to find PR claiming going on here.

My vote stays.

How shocking, a PR doesn't want to get lynched???

and people, some action would be nice. We got to get some other bandwagons rolling, I don't want to lynch Panzer just because he has the biggest bandwagon.

[mykonian]

Why is qwints assuming he is scum?

Till I have seen a cc, or something in the game points on the fact that Panzer is likely scum, I'm not going to lynch a claimed cop based on weak day one reasons.

[mykonian]

then it seems I have the option to back again, don't I?

GIEFF, the problem I think we will get, is that we get too close to a deadline to switch votes, seen that we get a weekend, and that we have only 3 days... Lynching Panzer is not a hard thing to do, as he has so many votes, so I'm not afraid that won't happen if there is a cc.

But what happens if he

is

the cop? Then we will have to move a bunch of votes somewhere else. That won't go easy. (based on experience, I'm lynched twice in a row, not for good reasons, and also by people who thought me town, just because I had the most votes close to a deadline. It is horrible.)

[mykonian]

GIEFF, this is probably because it is 1.44 am here, and because the word "know" is in that sentence twice, but that is a rhetorical question, right?

[mykonian]

you would have cc already, so you are probably not the cop.

Could be rolewise: you are information role too, but another kind.

could also be something in the thread, that I have missed.

GIEFF, I don't know.

[mykonian]

GIEFF: can you give a hint?

and if you were so sure, why didn't you hammer? First you say we shouldn't lynch him, then you say you know he isn't the cop.

[mykonian]

never said I would. I thought I was the person here that was going to assume panzer is the cop until we got a cc.

I'm just curious about what you are doing now. Looking at Panzers posts now.

[mykonian]

I'm not seeing a reason to disbelieve this claim. GIEFF, if you have information, I suggest you come out with it immediately, since today is the 7th, and I believe the deadline is tomorrow, the 8th.

10th I believe. Luckily, then we have a chance we can move this. People tend to be lazy in the weekend.

[mykonian]

GIEFF, can we wait with a bb claim until we don't have a cc? Half of the game has seen the claim...

Goat, from all but BB (and maybe qwints) I'm likely to believe it. And I want to quote GIEFF:

I would be royally pissed off if the real cop is off in lurky-land and didn't notice a fake-claim.

[mykonian]

guess you are right... I'm losing confidence too. I have seen too many wagons that can't even shift, without claims, within 4-5 days.

[mykonian]

let's not count on him. He probably can't help us that much (only voting for the biggest bandwagon, possibly)

[mykonian]

Dude get you votes of me..if there is a counter claim then you all can string me up, but deadline is coming in rwo days and if I get deadline lynched that'll be BS. Anyone with a vote on me right now is incredibly scummy and is trying to lynch the cop.

QFT. We got way to little room to do something now. and we have to practically mobilize the whole game to prevent a panzer lynch.

[mykonian]

You don't, Cause I'm cop.

isn't this part of your answer, GIEFF?

[mykonian]

I hope the mods choice to get his old avatar back means that things are going to be bloody

(bump)

[mykonian]

Panzer very obviously thought mykonian was making a joke post, but let a slip in that post. What the fuck is so hard to understand

ask Panzer, he doesn't understand himself.

[mykonian]

yeah, qwints has a serious problem with the pace of this game, I guess. Lurks very much. actually I don't remember anything he said.

[mykonian]

yeah, things are going wrong.

I never heard of the word lackadaisical, but I thought Panzers post after it quite normal, seen the way Panzer posts.

[mykonian]

even when it is midnight, I know the first part is WRONG: the fact that someone is confirmed increases the odds that you hit scum with a lynch. I tried some calculation (GD stuff) for a simple setup with a tracker, and part of it's usefullness is that it can be a confirmed towny.

[mykonian]

that's also a way to say it...

[mykonian]

4. The larger the game, the lower this number.

[mykonian]

I think, even with this extended deadline, it would be right for some people to take action. I don't understand how GIEFF and Goat are suspicious of an un-cc'ed cop. If it stays that way, panzer is OR the cop, OR super lucky mafia: I don't think the last is likely to happen, so I don't understand why two persons I thought most likely town even spend energy in that direction...

[mykonian]

but can we please wait with lynching till this night is over?

I see absolutely no advantage in lynching a claimed Pr day one, and I don't understand why you are even thinking about it...

[mykonian]

I'm fine with waiting a day to decide on Panzer. I want to note, though, that if I think someone is scum I'm going to want to lynch them regardless of them claiming a power role. If claiming a power role let you off the hook this easy, then all scum would claim power roles.

They kind of do, don't they? I have seen little vanilla claims this way. Simply because it is usually not a great town play to lynch a Pr day 1, as you don't have enough information then.

[mykonian]

Yes, I would like to get my pseudo of Panzer, I don't believe in his lynch.

and I thought I voted BB. Qwints is a lurker in my eyes that just should take a look at militant...

If he doesn't want that, see my statements about lynching lurkers, esspecially when there is some doubt about their allignment.

[mykonian]

unvote

, just for the show, I prefer BB, but qwints was third in my top three.

I thought we should go with the pseudovotes, as they show the majority of us was in favor of a BB lynch: but I'm afraid qwints is just the easy target just before the lynch, and I don't know if I should be that happy with it. On the other hand, a lurker lynch is better then a random lynch.

[mykonian]

I haven't read enough to make a decent opinion on Qwints, unfortunately.

That has probably little to do with you, and a lot with qwints

[mykonian]

Yes, I would like to get my pseudo of Panzer, I don't believe in his lynch.

and I thought I voted BB. Qwints is a lurker in my eyes that just should take a look at militant...

If he doesn't want that, see my statements about lynching lurkers, esspecially when there is some doubt about their allignment.

You mean when you wanted to lynch SpringLulliby when we had no idea about her alignment?

HUGE FOS: Mykonian

No, when discussion was stalling, I told my stance on lynching lurkers, how I got to that stance, and why it can be a good thing to lynch a lurker with less evidence. Do you want the reasoning again, or do you think you can find it.

In anyway, it mostly applies on qwints too.

[mykonian]

Yay! let's go for page 50!

I do like long day 1's but this is a bit too much...

I'm not against a qwints claim, but I also don't want three or more claims if that is possible.

[mykonian]

VT is wifom, but I believe it is preferable for scum to claim powerrole: VT's are just easily lynched. I think GIEFF, you should never lynch someone you think town, that is just doing it the wrong way. It helps scum. So if you have a scummy feeling from BB, you should question him. If you couldn't stop lynching qwints anyway, asking for a claim was a joke.

I'm not happy with qwints his play. Guess that in the end, finally our target was found, but seen the whole game, something is weird. When did qwints really get in the picture? Just before deadline. But again the question: what can stop us?

At least this is better then a Panzer lynch.

Qwints, are you known for thinking VT boring?