Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

I can't find it now, Goat. I'm pretty sure she said something about her 20%-Goat thing being in response to this post by me. I dug through her mega-post, but I can't find it. I'm sure I saw it somewhere, though.

And reading back through her Goat 20% post, I can believe that it was in response to my question about a Goat-mykonian-Panzer scumtriplet.

It was in response to that question, yes, but in that very post right after she lists the percentages she says "for likely to be scum." That was her opinion on percent likelihood to be scum, and what sparked the question isn't really relevant in terms of the answer. To my knowledge, Zilla has never argued anything regarding the nested association you speak of. That may be the way you interpreted, but it is not an answer I recall her ever giving.

Ultimately, the point you're getting at was that she has addressed some of my concerns. I agree with what you are saying, although there is a bit of a disconnect in terms of what I mean vs. what you do. The point I was making was more like her means of addressing them is frequently via misrepresentation, or deflection, or dismissal. The disconnect lies in that I don't really consider those valid responses. I guess an analogy would be if I were a reporter and I asked her a tough question. She fielded the question, but her response didn't actually answer the question.

Goat, how do you feel about Mykonian and Panzer? Do you find them as scummy as I do? More or less scummy than B_B? More or less scummy than each other?

Mykonian I believe to be town. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I'm not really picking up on any hidden motives behind his play. I would be suspicious, for instance, if he was inconsistent in applying his reasoning, but he appears to fairly consistently be against any case that is based around inconsistencies or lying. I also view him as somewhat more likely to be town if Zilla is scum.

Panzer's recent play has struck me as pro-town, actually, enough to the point where I no longer really believe him to be a Zilla scum buddy. I had him paired as a scum buddy to Zilla, based entirely on her stances. I was basing that off of how Zilla was always attacking either me or Mykonian, frequently using the reasoning of us defending Panzer, but yet she was never actually attacking Panzer. If she perceives defense of Panzer to be scummy, then it stands to reason she feels Panzer himself is scummy. Why then was she always attacking us, but not him? Then there was her "I can't believe how bad Panzer is lurking" statement right as she changed her vote to BB in post 544. It seemed extremely insincere. However, his own play doesn't make a whole lot of sense if he is a scumbuddy to Zilla. Refusing to play the game unless she claims is not typical scum buddy play, as in that case he would be interested in moving away from Zilla if possible.

Nothing about BB's play has struck me as scummy since he admitted he was lying about his reasoning for voting Panzer. I wouldn't argue he's been terribly pro-town either, though. He has at least remained consistent. I think the original points are still valid against him, but I have no new suspicions. If Zilla is scum, then he is very likely town.

Do I find them as scummy as you do: No.
More or less scummy than BB: Less, for now. If Zilla is scum, then more.
More or less scummy than each other: I view Mykonian as slightly more pro-town than Panzer, though they are close for now (roughly middle of the pack).

--------

Right now, Zilla is overwhelmingly my top choice for scum. I do not want to lynch anyone else, nor do I support the lynch of anyone except Zilla. I'm going to continue to fight to make this lynch happen. She is dishonest, inconsistent, slippery, manipulative and I don't see how she could possibly be town. Her suspicions are not sincere, they are fabrications for the purpose of appearing pro-town, not for the purpose of lynching scum. I have given plenty of reasons why this is the case.

All of my suspicions are based around the idea that Zilla is scum. Based on that idea, BB is town. Panzer and Mykonian are town. Springlullaby is town. You are probably town. Militant is probably town. Ting and Subgenius are 50/50. Dourgrim is probably scum. Qwints is probably scum.

I'd argue a Dour/Zilla/Qwints scum team, with a side of Ting/Subgenius possible but less likely. It all starts with Zilla, though. The rest of my suspicions are based on her flip (which is highly likely to be scum), and are not meaningful until we know that information.

[Goatrevolt]

1. The manner in which he hopped on Zilla was suspect. However, he immediately hopped back off. Most important, though, Dourgrim acted exactly the same way towards the BB wagon. He jumped on, then back off for Panzer. If this is an issue for lynching Zilla (I don't see it as one. Scum buddy reluctance to lynch her. Indecisive townie? there are plenty of explanations) then it should also be an issue against lynching BB.

The issue with #1 is that Dourgrim's hop on came AFTER his post about the WIFOM inherent in either a B_B or a Zilla lynch. The B_B unvote was partly due to Dourgrim wanting to avoid this WIFOM, so it made little sense for Dourgrim to get back on a Zilla wagon, especially as the 4th or 5th vote.

I don't know if I should reveal all my cards, but I think Dourgrim is a scumbuddy to Zilla. In fact, he would be my first priority target tomorrow if Zilla is scum.

Let's see, Dour is opposed to lynching BB because of WIFOM related to Zilla. What WIFOM? You mean the WIFOM that says if BB is town Zilla is next on the block? Ok...

He then votes for Zilla but at a point that doesn't make sense. He doesn't vote for her based on my case, but instead votes for her when I make the statement that Panzer could be a scum buddy. That doesn't seem like a normal townie place to make a vote. What about Panzer being a scum buddy makes Zilla a more attractive target, and why didn't Dour even bother to want to know my reasoning behind that statement before voting on it?

He then unvotes at the first sign of the wagon dying back down, and for weak reasoning (I had a town read on her originally, and I shouldn't dismiss it).

I don't know why his play detracts from Zilla's wagon. In fact, Dour's jumping back off the wagon gives me more confidence in it, especially since Dour was one of my picks for a Zilla scum buddy. He responded exactly the way one would expect a scum buddy would. He bused her when it looked like her lynch was going to happen, and backed off as soon as things started to turn away.

2. I addressed this already, but Panzer had already made it clear he wanted a Zilla or BB lynch. His vote on Zilla should not have been a surprise. In fact, he also placed a vote on BB when the wagon was gaining steam. Shouldn't that also be a detracting factor from the BB wagon?

It's possible I just noticed it because it was soon after I voted, but it looked as if he was happy to watch the Zilla wagon gain steam without actually being on it, but as soon as it looked like it may be derailed, he jumped on. You are right that this reason does apply to the B_B wagon; a scummy player keeps switching his vote between the two players.

Panzer didn't jump on because the wagon looked like it might be derailed or anything like that. He jumped

back

on Zilla because of my pressure on him. You can't argue both points.

3. Irrelevant point. You didn't have an issue with Dour voting BB when I "pushed" him into it earlier. I'm convincing people to vote for Zilla based on her play, not coercion. You yourself have admitted there is nothing wrong with me championing for a lynch on someone I believe to be scum. You right now are championing for a BB lynch. Wouldn't you cry foul if I said that it was a bad wagon because people voted BB based on your push?

The real issue was that I didn't like was the fact that Panzer and Dourgrim hopped on. It was after I noticed this that I realized both hops were subsequent to your persuasion. And then I noticed you trying to persuade me, too.

You could say Panzer's vote was based on my persuasion, or you could say his vote was practically on Zilla for all intensive purposes anyway, and I just made it happen with my pressure. I never "persuaded" Panzer into believing Zilla was scum. He was the first on that train. I just got him to stick his vote where his mouth was.

In terms of Dour, read above. Can you say busing?

As I said, I don't like the fact that the person "championing" the lynch is the person the lynch-target was hammering on for the last 15 pages. It's impossible to avoid at least some emotion creeping in. I don't think it is scummy that you are doing so, I just don't like it; it isn't "clean." If we are prepared to lynch Zilla, I'd like to have another non-scummy-looking person (i.e. not mykonian, Panzer, or B_B) championing it along side you, someone that isn't so emotionally invested.

You're only going to vote Zilla if one of some subset of pre-ordained players is also in favor of it? If Militant was championing her lynch, would that be enough to sway you, why? What if subgenius came back and said that he wanted to lynch Zilla, would that change your mind? If this is your philosophy, you will never be convinced enough to vote Zilla. I think you are deluding yourself, and creating arbitrary constraints as to why you don't want to lynch Zilla. Think honestly, for one second. Whose opinion in this game do you trust enough that you need their support on the Zilla wagon before you can get aboard?

Panzer is not emotionally invested. Zilla has not pressured him.
BB is not emotionally invested. Zilla has not pressured him.

The only reason they don't "count" is based on your assessment that they fall into the "scummy" and thus "non-counting" portion of the game.

Finally, you haven't really addressed any of my points regarding emotion. Does my case on her look emotional, or is it grounded in physical evidence? Does it matter if emotion is what caused me to inspect Zilla in the first place, if my case is actually based on legitimate evidence to suggest she is scum?

You are right that we have the same problem with a B_B lynch if I am the only one championing it. Not from my own perspective, of course, but from everyone else's. Do I have any takers for a co-champion of a B_B-lynch?

This isn't a problem. I'm just showing how your case on BB fits the same criteria for why you are rejecting the one on Zilla. You don't need 3 separate people with good references and a background check to champion a lynch. All you need is evidence that the player in question is scum. There is no end to that.

He called Panzer a townie once, which I thought was scummy, but I can see it just being a coincidence. He has referred to Zilla's towniness THREE times, which, as I said before, stretches the limits of coincidence.

I think you are a townie. Is that a scum slip? Or is that my opinion based on the evidence within the thread?

8. I personally think you are overstating the magnitude of this. Do you think Mykonian as scum would blatantly state someone is a townie after the ruckus that had been raised earlier in the thread over that same point? This is an easy "slip" for townies to make. If you think someone is scum, then you naturally feel that the people they are attacking are townies. Furthermore, Mykonian has said that BB was an easy target, and argued against Panzer's lynch as well. This doesn't apply only to the Zilla-wagon.

I see your question in the opposite light; EVEN after the ruckus raised, he STILL does it. It isn't so simple as saying "Zilla is townie," it's things that reveal that mykonian is assuming Zilla is town. Go back and actually read what he wrote.

Mykonian probably is assuming Zilla is town. And that doesn't make him scum. I'm assuming you're town. Why, because I don't think your play makes you out to be scum? Am I scum because my assumption is that you're town?

There's a difference in assuming someone's alignment because you know their alignment or doing so because of what you believe their alignment to be based on the evidence.

11 and 12. I agree that the criteria Zilla mentioned were met, and that she should have claimed. Regardless, calling for a claim when a player is at L-4 is not pro-town. Not realizing how many votes a player has when you are clamoring for her to claim is also not pro-town. And it's the scummiest players in the game who are doing it. Doesn't that set off any bells?

When B_B, mykonian, and Panzer all agree on something, my instinct is to do the opposite.

Do you disagree?

Scummiest players based on your assessment. I've never found Mykonian to be scummy. Panzer and BB I have, earlier on in the thread, but I find them far less scummy now.

I'll put it this way: If you truly believed Zilla was scum, you would not have a problem with people pushing her to claim. Your assumptions would be something like: "Hm...Panzer is pushing Zilla hard, maybe he's actually town because she's scum." or "Hm...Panzer's actions here are probably just him busing Zilla."

What's the real reason you think she's town? I don't think these "issues with her wagon" are the real reasons you don't want to lynch her. Maybe this is what you are telling yourself is the reason behind it, but I would doubt this is the honest truth.

Panzer, Mykonian, and Zilla have all voted for BB throughout the course of this game. Zilla put BB to L-2 with a suspicious jump from me to him, and that is not detracting your crusade against BB at all. Considering your stated suspicion of Zilla, that should be a

huge

detracting point from the BB wagon, but you haven't even considered it. Quite frankly, these are not valid reasons for not being on Zilla. If you believed this to be true, you'd be arguing for a subgenius lynch because he has so few connections.

[Beyond_Birthday]

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.

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.

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.

And yes, I read your posts, I am not reresponding to them because, again, I am not going to waste my time. Furthermore, you can consider my vote on you if your alive tomorrow. I differ with Gieff and think that Zilla, Gieff, and someone random though antagonistic with them is a scum team, but I do acknowledge his point on Dour.

Spring, shall we assume you caught up?

[Zilla]

Mykonian's first vote on Birthday is extremely perplexing. He has said absolutely nothing about Birthday before voting him, and the line before that, he is agreeing with a point that Birthday didn't even make on GIEFF.

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.

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.

There's also that he cautions Panzer on voting me, even though Panzer's reasons for voting me, at least according to Mykonian, are similar to his own reasons for voting GIEFF. Both were voting because their target was pushing a "weak" case, and interestingly enough, GIEFF's case was on Panzer, while my case was on Mykonian.

This calls to mind the image of two gunslingers back to back, spinning around each other and blasting their enemies.

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.

This post is fishy, specifically how he can believe GIEFF but also not believe GIEFF at the same time.

Hmm.. this post is interesting in that he accuses GIEFF of extending his case much the same as Goat accused me of. Goat's thoughts on a supposedly pro-town player pointing this out on another supposedly pro-town player?


Mykonian continues asserting that GIEFF is trying to lynch Panzer on policy of LAL, though he refuted it.

This post, specifically, this part:

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.

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.

Here, he posts his reads on people. Some of them are quite odd, quite wrong.

[quote="Mykonian]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.[/quote]

Voted for distancing? I don't recall that being a part of his case at all. He was voted for admitting to being scummy and taking a "I was scummy, so what?" stance, and for admitting that Goat's case "reaches the right conclusions."

Zilla Replacing dejkha: annoying nitpicking and the next easy target.[/url]

If I'm the next easy target, who is it that is targetting me?

Dourgrim: flying under the radar to me. Should have looked at him closer

This is something that is sketchy to begin with and ought to be corrected. He hasn't said anything about Dour since.

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.

I can buy this read after reading him in isolation, though this is the first time he's commented on GIEFF "bandwagoning."

Goatrevolt: protown

No elaboration, despite him also being on the BB and Zilla cases?

qwints Replacing MacavityLock: plain lurking, no read because of that.

This is acceptable, qwints himself hasn't participated much, though it would be good to explain your stance on Macavity when he was active.

militant: no idea where he stands, was late on BB.

Also joined my case. If you're going to peg GIEFF for it, you may as well be consistent.

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.

This is not a read. I suspect he's out of reasons to call him pro-town.

springlullaby: I always think spring scum. Seems to take weird stances on purpose, and on the other hand is easily active lurking.

Ironically fitting, and Spring really does need to participate more.

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...

And what were the results of looking at what he did? There is no read here. Also, I think he's been more active than Spring. You didn't seem to have a problem finding Militant's stance.

ting =): protown. I usually agree with his posts.

Just because you agree with him? I thoguht you said scum don't have to lie except for their conclusions, couldn't he be leading you astray under that logic? There's no reason to think someone is pro-town just because you agree with them.

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.

He then says it's "a way of saying it." I don't buy it. His entire logic for asking me to claim is that it would prevent my lynch; why would he ask for my claim if he didn't want to lynch me in the first place? The only motivation I can think of is scum trying to get role information from someone they don't expect to actually lynch.

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.

Here, I'm confused over why he is accusing GIEFF of mislynching me when he says he doesn't want to lynch me. Again, he's trying to say I'm automatic town.

Here, he seems to imply that he wants me to claim, and then lynch me, or something. Prior to this, he seems to want me to claim to avoid lynching me, now he phrases it as though I should be lynched after I claim.

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.

[Goatrevolt]

Hmm.. this post is interesting in that he accuses GIEFF of extending his case much the same as Goat accused me of. Goat's thoughts on a supposedly pro-town player pointing this out on another supposedly pro-town player?

I disagree with Mykonian's stance in that post. I disagree with a good number of his stances in this game. I don't believe that he is scum, though.

I haven't seen anything from him that suggests to me he is actually scum. I can't think of any time where I was surprised by a stance he took, or felt that he was opportunistic, or lying about something. I'm not seeing scum motives behind his actions.

[springlullaby]

Ok, the huge ass posts have to stop. There is only so much that can be said in a game of mafia, beyond which threshold it is obstinacy one way or another, and said obstinacy doesn't help any because it is impossible to read.

BB: yes I've caught up.

Zilla: a ppa after you have voted mykonian smacks of after the fact justification

Goat: basing your read of an entire game around one hypothesis is crappy and freaking lazy, i don't even understand how you can deduce the alignment of so many people just based on one person.

mykonian is not on my immediate scumlist, he doesn't look like someone who want to look like town.

[GIEFF]

You don't see a scum motive behind demanding a claim from a player you don't want to see lynched?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat: basing your read of an entire game around one hypothesis is crappy and freaking lazy, i don't even understand how you can deduce the alignment of so many people just based on one person.

You're accusing me of being lazy? Funny.

My stances aren't lazy. I've caught scum. I've worked for 10+ pages trying to get this scum lynched. There's nothing lazy about that.

What is crappy about me basing my read of an entire game around my ideas of who is scum and town? I think Zilla is overwhelming scum. That has influenced my read of the game. And? Do I somehow need to come up with a couple more hypotheses because the one I am convinced of apparently isn't enough?

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

You don't see a scum motive behind demanding a claim from a player you don't want to see lynched?

I assume this is directed at me? GIEFF, you're looking only at the what and not bothering to consider the why. I can see scum motivation behind doing so. I don't see scum motivations behind Mykonian doing so. Getting people to claim means more information for the scum. Is that Mykonian's reasoning behind why he wants to do it? I don't really think so. Why do you?

Essentially, my town read of Mykonian boils down to the point SL made about him.

I'd like to see your response to my posts 775/776.

[Goatrevolt]

SL: I want to see a reply to my post 751 and 769. Your defense of Zilla basically boils down to:

1. "Scum wouldn't be antagonistic." You were antagonistic as scum in our recent game.

2. "Zilla's flip-flop on me reads like indecisive town." Her flip-flop on me doesn't coincide with any new evidence to change her mind. It coincides with Zilla being under a great deal of pressure and needing to deflect from it. I suggest you look at Posts 554 and 769, which point out how her voting does not match her suspicions.

[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.

[Dourgrim]

1. The manner in which he hopped on Zilla was suspect. However, he immediately hopped back off. Most important, though, Dourgrim acted exactly the same way towards the BB wagon. He jumped on, then back off for Panzer. If this is an issue for lynching Zilla (I don't see it as one. Scum buddy reluctance to lynch her. Indecisive townie? there are plenty of explanations) then it should also be an issue against lynching BB.

The issue with #1 is that Dourgrim's hop on came AFTER his post about the WIFOM inherent in either a B_B or a Zilla lynch. The B_B unvote was partly due to Dourgrim wanting to avoid this WIFOM, so it made little sense for Dourgrim to get back on a Zilla wagon, especially as the 4th or 5th vote.

I don't know if I should reveal all my cards, but I think Dourgrim is a scumbuddy to Zilla. In fact, he would be my first priority target tomorrow if Zilla is scum.

Let's see, Dour is opposed to lynching BB because of WIFOM related to Zilla. What WIFOM? You mean the WIFOM that says if BB is town Zilla is next on the block? Ok...

NO. Dear sweet Jesus, why is this so friggin' hard for people to understand? I have never said that I was opposed to a BB lynch, I said I thought it'd be better to table it and go back to cases I believed were stronger at the time: GIEFF and Panzer. You're making the EXACT SAME misrepresentation that GIEFF was during our gigantic argument before, and you're wrong just like he was about this point.

He then votes for Zilla but at a point that doesn't make sense. He doesn't vote for her based on my case, but instead votes for her when I make the statement that Panzer could be a scum buddy. That doesn't seem like a normal townie place to make a vote. What about Panzer being a scum buddy makes Zilla a more attractive target, and why didn't Dour even bother to want to know my reasoning behind that statement before voting on it?

This is also a misrepresentation. The post he's referring to is here:

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

He then unvotes at the first sign of the wagon dying back down, and for weak reasoning (I had a town read on her originally, and I shouldn't dismiss it).

I'm sorry, should I have dismissed my earlier read on Zilla and blindly followed? Should I not have moved my vote to a person whose scumminess I was more confident in as the conversation developed? I moved my vote because I considered the cases involved and believed (and still believe) that Panzer was/is the scummiest-looking player in the game. You're just pissed that your case didn't carry through to the satisfaction of the rest of the players in the game. After all, you're the one who said:

Right now, Zilla is overwhelmingly my top choice for scum. I do not want to lynch anyone else, nor do I support the lynch of anyone except Zilla. I'm going to continue to fight to make this lynch happen. She is dishonest, inconsistent, slippery, manipulative and I don't see how she could possibly be town. Her suspicions are not sincere, they are fabrications for the purpose of appearing pro-town, not for the purpose of lynching scum. I have given plenty of reasons why this is the case.

So you're going to only support one lynch choice, but then you're going to start throwing accusations around based on your preconception of the results of that lynch? Yes, you've definitely given plenty of reasons why you believe Zilla to be scum. You've also accused qwints, Panzer, subgenius and BB to be potential scumbuddies to Zilla over the span of the last week. How many people do you think are scum in this game?

I don't know why his play detracts from Zilla's wagon. In fact, Dour's jumping back off the wagon gives me more confidence in it, especially since Dour was one of my picks for a Zilla scum buddy. He responded exactly the way one would expect a scum buddy would. He bused her when it looked like her lynch was going to happen, and backed off as soon as things started to turn away.

One of your MANY picks for a Zilla scum buddy, depending on which way the wind is blowing at any given moment.

My stances aren't lazy. I've caught scum. I've worked for 10+ pages trying to get this scum lynched. There's nothing lazy about that.

No, you haven't caught scum. You THINK you have, and your case is fairly compelling, but don't even bother trying to misrepresent your opinion as fact, especially when it seems apparent that you can't even convince the majority of the Town that you're right.

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

This game is starting to blatantly suck. I'm usually a proponent of a long Day One, but I think we're starting to scatter too much as we overanalyze every single post that's made to fit our preconceived notions of who we think is scum/Town, whose playstyles we like/dislike, etc. I am voting for Panzer because he got busted in a lie VERY early in the game, and because he's actively lurking behind his "I'm not reading until Zilla claims" crap instead of trying to play the game (as not fun as this game has become). I would also support lynches of (in this order) GIEFF

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

and Zilla

(nitpicking, deflection, lying)

. I'm not as comfortable with a BB lynch as I was before, mostly because my doubts on GIEFF are causing me to mistrust his case against BB, but enough facts remain in that case that I could go with it if necessary to end this Day.

[GIEFF]

The point I was making was more like her means of addressing them is frequently via misrepresentation, or deflection, or dismissal. The disconnect lies in that I don't really consider those valid responses.

I agree. The point I was making was that she was NOT ignoring your posts, as you claimed.

You're only going to vote Zilla if one of some subset of pre-ordained players is also in favor of it? If Militant was championing her lynch, would that be enough to sway you, why? What if subgenius came back and said that he wanted to lynch Zilla, would that change your mind? If this is your philosophy, you will never be convinced enough to vote Zilla. I think you are deluding yourself, and creating arbitrary constraints as to why you don't want to lynch Zilla. Think honestly, for one second. Whose opinion in this game do you trust enough that you need their support on the Zilla wagon before you can get aboard?

Even if B_B or Panzer were town, I could see them supporting a Zilla lynch just because it helps avoid their own lynch. Self-preservation is not exclusive to scum. Yes, if militant supported a Zilla lynch to the same degree you did, that would help. If anybody besides mykonian, Panzer, or B_B supported it to the extent that they were also trying to get others on board, I think I would be OK with it, too. But now, the main ringleaders are the person the most emotionally invested, and the people who I think are scum, and who also have a number of votes on them. And I see that as a problem.

I would be suspicious, for instance, if he was inconsistent in applying his reasoning, but he appears to fairly consistently be against any case that is based around inconsistencies or lying.

mykonian has not been consistent. He voted me because he thought I was using lynch all liars and that I was pushing a case way too far if it was really based on LAL, then he unvoted me when he realized I was not using LAL, and then re-voted me (in a case-extender quite similar to what Zilla has done to you) because I was on the Zilla and B_B wagons, even though others were as well. That is far from consistent.

Did you carefully read Zilla's case on mykonian? Do you see him extending his case on me with the "unfalsifiable argument" and "on B_B and Zilla's wagon" arguments?

And look, now he's back on the LAL kick:

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.

My case was not LAL. You agreed when you unvoted me.

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)

My response, explaining my case again for mykonian.

Then, mykonian said:

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.

And then, "tomorrow":

unvote

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

sorry for this short post.

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.

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.

----------

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.

[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]

[Dourgrim]

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.

I've made my case, you've disagreed with it, we agreed to drop it for now and move on with the game. I'm not going to restart another drawn-out argument with you because it's thread noise, and because we've both said everything we wanted to say about the situation, and because no one else in this game seems to want to bother reading anything we say about it at this point. I stated my opinion, and I'm moving on... why don't you?

[GIEFF]

Because you keep throwing out general statements that aren't true, and, as I said, if it's repeated often enough without opposition, people will start to believe it.

[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.

[ting =)]

Okay, I've read till page 30. Nothing much struck out between when I last stopped and then.

gieff wrote:

If you're townie, and you really think that you've caught two or three scum, then please ask people to lynch you. Be a martyr. If I was confident that my death would catch two or three scum, I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice myself.

If you do not throw yourself on the proverbial sword, than you are either not confident that you have "caught" two or three scum, or you are not town, and your accusation is one of scummy self-preservation. Which is it?

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Nobody's death says anything about the validity of whoever they think is scum. If a person's argument doesn't convince me when he's alive, it won't convince me when he's dead, even if he flips town. Your calling for someone to 'martyr' themselves is horrible.

Of course I knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself. This post was meant to demonstrate the fact that Zilla was NOT actually confident that she caught two or three scum, and that her statement was one of scummy self-preservation, not one she actually felt was true. Note the 2nd paragraph where I asked her a question, giving her a choice between martyring herself or admitting she is not as confident about having caught scum as she claimed.

She did not answer.

Confidence in whether or not you've caught scum has nothing to do with your willingness to die. And a townie's death still says nothing about the validity of his statements. Whether or not you knew Zilla wouldn't martyr herself is irrelevant to the fact that you told someone to martyr themself. It's pointless and scummy.

[GIEFF]

I did not want her to martyr herself. I was demonstrating that what she said was not true.

[Goatrevolt]

Dour: I'm not acting on anything that requires knowledge of Zilla's alignment. Though I may think you a scum buddy, I'm not acting on it until I get confirmation of her alignment. For the record, there's nothing wrong with me saying "If Zilla is scum, I think the rest of the scum come from this pool of 4 players" even if there aren't that many total scum in the game. I can only vote one person at a time, so it doesn't matter if I have 6 plausible scum in a 12 player game, as long as I am pursuing who I think is most likely to be scum.

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

What was the difference? Why was your vote still on Panzer when you first agreed with my case on Zilla? What convinced you that Panzer was no longer the best lynch and that Zilla was? What changed your mind back?

I'm sorry, should I have dismissed my earlier read on Zilla and blindly followed? Should I not have moved my vote to a person whose scumminess I was more confident in as the conversation developed? I moved my vote because I considered the cases involved and believed (and still believe) that Panzer was/is the scummiest-looking player in the game. You're just pissed that your case didn't carry through to the satisfaction of the rest of the players in the game.

While I am annoyed we haven't lynched Zilla, that's not at all why I'm suspicious of your vote swap. What about the development of the conversation between your vote on Zilla to your vote back to Panzer caused you to change your mind?

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

Meh, I would guess it's the large walls of text more so than my arrogance that is keeping people away. If my arrogance is driving people away, then I'll shut up. I'm not sure what you're saying with the "stop tunneling" bit. If you're saying that I should quit Zilla and focus on other targets as well, then that isn't going to happen. I'm not interested in lynching anyone besides Zilla.

The point I was making was more like her means of addressing them is frequently via misrepresentation, or deflection, or dismissal. The disconnect lies in that I don't really consider those valid responses.

I agree. The point I was making was that she was NOT ignoring your posts, as you claimed.

I didn't actually claim that. I said there was no attempt to debunk. By debunk I mean "show to be false." She may have addressed those points, but didn't actually try to show it to be false as much as dismiss/deflect/misrep, etc.

Regarding emotion, you still haven't addressed the couple of places where I discussed it. Also, I want to hear what you have to say about my "Zilla's suspicious L-2 on BB should be a huge deterrence from that wagon if you were actually as suspicious of Zilla as you state" comment. You're using BB and Panzer's presence on the Zilla wagon as reason to stay away yourself, but you're not using Zilla and Panzer's presence on the earlier BB wagon in the same manner.

[Dourgrim]

Dour: I'm not acting on anything that requires knowledge of Zilla's alignment. Though I may think you a scum buddy, I'm not acting on it until I get confirmation of her alignment. For the record, there's nothing wrong with me saying "If Zilla is scum, I think the rest of the scum come from this pool of 4 players" even if there aren't that many total scum in the game. I can only vote one person at a time, so it doesn't matter if I have 6 plausible scum in a 12 player game, as long as I am pursuing who I think is most likely to be scum.

This is a fair point. However, what I was trying to get at is that you've lumped about half the game together with Zilla at varying points, which doesn't lend lots of creedence to your current theory (me and qwints). Of course, I believe your theory even less than the rest of the game because I know I'm Town, but that's neither here nor there (as pretty much any sane Mafia player would say the same thing).

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

What was the difference? Why was your vote still on Panzer when you first agreed with my case on Zilla? What convinced you that Panzer was no longer the best lynch and that Zilla was? What changed your mind back?

My vote has been on Panzer off and on all game, if you've noticed. If/when I've moved my vote, it's been to apply pressure to other scummy-looking players whose lynch would make sense to me. However, as the pressure of my vote seems to make less and less an impact, I keep coming back to the case I've

always

thought made sense throughout the entire game so far: Panzer. At the point being referenced above, the case on Zilla was strong (and still is), and the case against Panzer didn't have any momentum, so I believed my vote would have greater impact on a Zilla-wagon. However, when the Zilla/BB issue came up, WIFOM was introduced, and I believed at the time that we should table that particular line of questioning for the moment and go back to what I believe(d) was a solid case that hasn't changed its validity: Panzer.

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

Meh, I would guess it's the large walls of text more so than my arrogance that is keeping people away. If my arrogance is driving people away, then I'll shut up. I'm not sure what you're saying with the "stop tunneling" bit. If you're saying that I should quit Zilla and focus on other targets as well, then that isn't going to happen. I'm not interested in lynching anyone besides Zilla.

I'm not saying you should stop pursuing your case on Zilla; I'm saying you should stop announcing that Zilla's the only case you're interested in backing and open your eyes a bit to the other valid cases that are being presented in the thread. I get that you're convinced of the "rightness" of your cause vs. Zilla, but you're intentionally blinding yourself to the other cases that have been presented over the last 33 pages because you're so

sure

you're right. That smacks of arrogance, and while I'm almost positive it's unintentional based on your playstyle, it's there nonetheless.

The walls of text probably aren't helping either of us, either.

[Goatrevolt]

This is a fair point. However, what I was trying to get at is that you've lumped about half the game together with Zilla at varying points, which doesn't lend lots of creedence to your current theory (me and qwints). Of course, I believe your theory even less than the rest of the game because I know I'm Town, but that's neither here nor there (as pretty much any sane Mafia player would say the same thing).

My theories about who are scum with Zilla aren't terribly relevant unless Zilla is dead and scum. I pointed out my theory on you specifically because GIEFF was using your on/off the wagon as a point against it, and I didn't see how that affected Zilla-scum at all. I don't care if people aren't giving those theories any credence, because they aren't relevant until we learn about Zilla.

I'm not intentionally blinding myself to anything. I see the validity of the case on BB, I was the one initially championing it. I understand why people are after Mykonian, but I personally disagree. I'm not going to "open my eyes" and support other cases if I don't actually believe those people to be scum, and I would be lying if I said my opinion on Zilla didn't affect that.

For instance, BB. I don't think he's scum if Zilla is scum. What you're essentially asking me to do is ignore Zilla and then evaluate whether or not I believe BB to be scum. The problem is, it wouldn't make sense for me to do that, because I strongly believe Zilla to be scum, which would make BB likely town. My evidence is that BB is town based on my evidence that Zilla is scum. I'm not going to just ignore that.

You're asking me to compromise and find other lynches I will agree with. That's not going to happen. It's not a matter of me "shutting myself out" or ignoring cases out of my irrational pursuit of Zilla. It's a matter of me being convinced Zilla is scum and my opinion that it would be wrong for the town to lynch anyone else.

And yes, I realize I'm being arrogant. I'm saying that I know who is scum and those who aren't in support of the Zilla lynch are wrong. That's essentially what everyone else is doing as well, though. I'm just doing it more prevalently.

Dour: Can you give me a breakdown of the points that you think makes Panzer likely to be scum? Then could you explain your stance on Zilla. What about my case on her did you agree with? What about her is keeping you from voting her? Finally, could you explain why you think the points against Panzer outweigh the points against Zilla.

[GIEFF]

Regarding emotion, you still haven't addressed the couple of places where I discussed it. Also, I want to hear what you have to say about my "Zilla's suspicious L-2 on BB should be a huge deterrence from that wagon if you were actually as suspicious of Zilla as you state" comment. You're using BB and Panzer's presence on the Zilla wagon as reason to stay away yourself, but you're not using Zilla and Panzer's presence on the earlier BB wagon in the same manner.

I believe I have addressed it. You've said that emotion isn't involved, and I disagree. Even if you really don't think you are being affected at all by emotion, I don't think it's possible for humans not to be. You have said things like "I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds," have admitted how frustrated Zilla makes you, and talked about consciously trying to remain objective.

And the fact that your focus is so singular doesn't help your claim that you are not acting emotionally. Even if you won't accept a lynch other than Zilla's today, why aren't you at least considering who else is scum? The game lasts for more than one day, and if you are killed tonight, we won't get your input on or interactions with other players.


You're right that Panzer was on the B_B wagon. I'm not disputing that, and I'm not disputing that it is a problem with the B_B wagon. The list of things I saw wrong with the Zilla wagon was just that; it was not meant to be reasons I prefer a B_B lynch to a Zilla lynch. As I said, a number of the anti-Zilla-lynch reasons would also apply to a B_B lynch. Also, Panzer has been much more adamant about the Zilla lynch than the B_B lynch, going so far as to go on "post-strike" until Zilla claims.


Speaking of Panzer, it's been a while since his last post. Are you still on strike, Panzer? Do you still feel that, at L-4, Zilla should still claim?


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

[Goatrevolt]

I believe I have addressed it. You've said that emotion isn't involved, and I disagree. Even if you really don't think you are being affected at all by emotion, I don't think it's possible for humans not to be. You have said things like "I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds," have admitted how frustrated Zilla makes you, and talked about consciously trying to remain objective.

You're missing my point. Which, specifically, of my points against Zilla is invalidated by emotion? Whether or not emotion is involved, my case against her is not based on it. How does any of my case become somehow less valid? As for the "enjoy ripping this to shreds" comment, that's more of a display of my suspicion of Zilla rather than emotional investment. That's a facet of my playstyle more than an emotional reaction to Zilla. Call it excitement at catching scum, you could say.

And the fact that your focus is so singular doesn't help your claim that you are not acting emotionally. Even if you won't accept a lynch other than Zilla's today, why aren't you at least considering who else is scum? The game lasts for more than one day, and if you are killed tonight, we won't get your input on or interactions with other players.

I've done that already. In fact, the reason why Dour and I are going back and forth is because I paired him with Zilla. Check out the bottom of Post 775 and top of Post 776.

I can elaborate on my reasoning for more than just Dour if necessary.

[GIEFF]

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).

I want to respond to the "LAL" thing a bit further.

This is completely wrong. And I don't know what you mean by "unfalsifiable." Isn't every single case in the game "unfalsifiable?"

You claim that my original case was just about lynching Panzer because he lied, and had nothing to do with his motivation for voting - you say this only came later. I will prove you wrong.

I've tried to explain this to you time and time again throughout the thread, but either the language barrier or your unwillingness to understand is preventing us from communicating effectively. I will try it again.

1 - I tell Panzer he is misrepresenting the past.
2 - I tell Panzer he lied.

So yes, if I had left my case at this, it would just be LAL. But....

3 - I vote for Panzer, and say

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

More quotes from me talking to Panzer:

If you really are town, what you should do is stop lying about your reasons for voting people

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

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Lying about reasoning. This is a huge scumtell, as it indicates the player is just faking reasoning. If you arrived at suspicion naturally, you should be able to explain why. If you STARTED at suspicion and then tried to fill in the blanks so another would believe that you arrive there due to actual logic and reasoning, you can slip up and get caught in mistakes. If Player X really finds Player Y scummy, there should be no reason for Player X to lie about the reasons behind that suspision.

Panzer was faking logic.

The lie wasn't meant to confuse the town, it was meant to convince the town that Panzer really thought you were scum, that he saw scummy behavior and acted on it, rather than voting for you for other reasons and trying to fabricate reasons he did not really believe to justify it.

I feel like I've done this before. Yet you STILL are pushing the "LAL" thing, even after UNVOTING me after claiming you understood my point.


Point to a place where I say "lynch all liars" or argue that we should lynch Panzer simply because he lied. If you can't (and I know you can't), then don't mischaracterize my case as "Lynch all liars" again. Not all lies are equally scummy; lies about the reasons behind your vote are the scummiest, for reasons I've gone into over and over, and reasons which you have shown no interest in attempting to understand.

-----

Goat, I am still waiting to hear if you have carefully read Zilla's case on mykonian, and to hear whether you think he extended his case on me in a similar way to Zilla extending her case on you. Read the top half of 787.