Mini 1266 - My iTunes Mafia - GAME OVER

[Painted Face of Death]

Could you elaborate on that, please? It isn't that helpful to just say you think someone is scum without saying why.

[DeasVail]

It is only very slight, but I know that Skenvoy expressed interesting in outing this game before role pms went out and I know that she hasn't been scum much recently, so I think that a scum role pm may have encouraged her to stay in. Also, she mentions the iTunes thing as interesting almost as if defending her choice to stay in the game.

[Skenvoy]

Nah, my main reason for wanting to out for the game was because I was still in the queue for a newbie, and had just replaced into another game - I figured that if I was in for this game as well, I wouldn't be able to play the newbie. I replaced into another game just before this game started, so the point is void.

Deasveil, why didn't you provide your reasons before being prompted?

[Slandaar]

Deasveil, why didn't you provide your reasons before being prompted?

VOTE: Skenvoy

[Painted Face of Death]

... and apparently Slandaar's not a fan of people providing reasons. Or asking for reasons. Or posting reasons for his own votes, for that matter.

FoS: Slandaar. That was a strange-looking post.

[DeasVail]

Because I knew someone would prompt me.

Your post = My point is void because of.... *explanation of why you wanted to /out, which is not of much relevance to my point*

Your post indicates that you are somewhat concerned by my (extremely slight, almost random) suspicion of you. However, why have you explained your wish to /out when my theory is concerned with you staying in, despite having wanted to /out?

[Painted Face of Death]

Vote: DeasVail

Three reasons:
a) not providing reasons at first, then saying "because I knew someone would prompt me." Why not just provide them up front instead of fishing for questions with a useless post?
b) the reasons he did provide don't make much sense. They're super meta and consist of reading way too much into a comment that the theme seems cool. Skenvoy didn't say anything about defending her "choice to stay in the game" and there's no need to defend such a choice anyway.
c) finally, post 30 doesn't make much sense either. I don't really even want to get into this because it's so meta and besides the point, but DV's theory doesn't work even on its own terms. Skenvoy signed up for the game -- presumably because she was interested -- and then asked if she could get out, which DV finds weirdly suspicious. Yet in post 30 DV seems to think, or try to sneakily imply, that staying in requires some sort of explanation and that Skenvoy's explanation wasn't relevant.

[Slandaar]

That question is loaded, what do you expect Deas to say? the reasoning seemed VERY good, now why was there a suspicious tone in the questioning? it reads scummy.

[Slandaar]

I am gonna go out on a limb and say painted and sken are both scum.

[Slandaar]

Painted Fos'ed me and not Deas then uses Deas's first 2 posts as reasons behind his vote...

Interesting.

You can actually see Painted coming to Skenvoys aid like 3 times subtly, there looks like a link there

[DeasVail]

Unvote: Skenvoy
Vote: Painted Face of Death

Painted, your post indicates to me that you are very concerned with justifying your reason for voting me and appearing as if you have a great understanding of what's going on.

Well, you don't. Skenvoy wanting to /out had nothing to do with my vote on her. It is her staying in, despite having wanted to /out earlier that made me *very slightly* suspicious of her.

Why are you complaining about a useless post in RVS?

You're completely over-reacting to a slight suspicion I expressed in RVS. It seems like you're trying to look town and logical by providing these three reasons for your vote, but it's nitpicking at best. I think you are scum because you seem to be trying to make your vote seem justified and make me out to be suspicious when you haven't even considered anything properly.

[Slandaar]

This game got serious fast.

I like

[DeasVail]

This game got serious fast.

I like

I know!

So, Skenvoy, what do you think of Painted?

Also Slandaar, should I believe that you're town because you've supported me?

[Painted Face of Death]

DV, I agree we all only have slight suspicions for our votes at this early stage. I'm not sure why it's only "overreacting" and "nitpicking" when I vote based on a slight suspicion, though. Using that same logic, wouldn't both of your votes be "overreacting" and "nitpicking" as well?

[DeasVail]

No, Painted, because I never pretended that my "case" (if you could even call it that) was any better than it actually was.

Why are you using my behaviour to defend your own if you suspect me?

The whole three reasons: a) b) c) thing seems to me like an attempt to make your "case" convincing, rather than a slight suspicion.

[DeasVail]

Oh, and nitpicking because you're basically complaining about my lack of logic/lack of information provided, while I can't consider my suspicion nitpicking because I was presenting a possible theory.

[Slandaar]

Not because I have supported you, no.

If you agree with the reasoning behind supporting you then you should I think.

I find you pretty town anyways, that reasoning behind the vote on sken was really well thought out, your vote on painted was pretty good too imo.

[Slandaar]

@Painted: Why didn't you vote me when you FOS'ed me?

[Slandaar]

surely at that point I was the most suspicious player to you?

[DeasVail]

hmmm, I don't think I should believe you're town just because I agree with your reasoning. You could easily be scum.

[Painted Face of Death]

DV, let's recap here. I'll use roman numerals this time, since you don't seem to like letters.

i) First, you vote for Skenvoy, providing reasons when asked. There's nothing wrong with this in itself: it's just that your reasoning is poor.
ii) Next, I vote for you, explaining my reasons. Note that my reasons did not include you being suspicious of a player and voting. That's not what I suspect you for: I suspect you for the reasons I listed.
iii) Finally, you switch your vote to me, apparently for providing reasons ("trying to make my vote seem justified"). You backpedal on i), saying it was just a useless RVS post, but RVS ends when people actually get suspicious and start having reasons for their votes. You say I'm nitpicking by voting for you based on my early suspicion, when at the same time, you vote for me based on yours.

There's nothing wrong with either of us voting based on our suspicions -- this game is all about analysis -- it's just a matter of whether the reasoning is solid. Yours isn't. There's nothing odd about Skenvoy thinking she'd be ineligible for a newbie game if she joined this one and asking if she could leave, then staying in once she realized she was ineligible anyway, the game had already started, and the theme was kickass. The way you and Slandaar tried to start something on Skenvoy for poor reasons, then backpedal once you're called on it, is pretty suspicious.

[Slandaar]

You could easily be scum.

I will tell you a secret if you promise not to tell anyone else...

Spoiler:

I'm Town

I just find it really weird how painted has kind of jumped to skens aid so strongly. It could be buddying but to me it reads like they are both scum. like at this stage of the game my reads on them are actually ridiculously strong. And then on the flip side my town read on Deas for page 2 is ridiculously strong too.

[Painted Face of Death]

Slandaar, obviously I didn't think you were suspicious enough for a vote. Are you complaining? I thought I'd FOS you and see what happened. And DV's post 30 happened, which, in combination with the other reasons I listed, led me to vote for him.

I have no read at all on Skenvoy, but when players jump to the attack based on obviously faulty reasoning, and continue to respond in scummy looking ways, I tend to think they're scum.

[Slandaar]

i) First, you vote for Skenvoy, providing reasons when asked. There's nothing wrong with this in itself: it's just that your reasoning is poor.

hmmmmmmm

can you explain why you think Deas's reasoning was poor for a page one vote?

[Painted Face of Death]

I already did, at length. See posts 31 and 45.