Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I don't want to crucify SL for making a random vote in the midst of a small amount of actual discussion.
Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious? How would a cop have information on 3 players before the game began? Why would a SK have information on 3 mafia members before the game began? How are you clearing GIEFF of being mafia under the assumption that he's "hunting mafia"?
Panzer: What are you basing your assumption that mykonian doesn't want to lynch mafia off of? Also, I can't tell if your last post is serious or not. Clarification?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:
Were you serious with your first post?
I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.dejkha wrote: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.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
This is going to be a long post. I'm reading through the thread and pointing out things as I go:
Why did you assume mykonian's vote was serious? To me it seemed obvious it was a joke (though I'll admit I was thrown off by his later explanations), and I'm curious why this didn't even cross your mind.Panzerjager wrote:@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
Right, I caught that reference. However, if you knew he wasn't serious, then why would you even bother to discuss other possibilities?Dourgrim wrote:Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.
When you say "GIEFF is unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame" you are making the implicit statement that a cop could possibly out himself in pregame with information on 3 scum. My question was probing you to figure out how that would even be possible. In other words, why would you even consider cop a possibility, when a cop couldn't possibly have information on 3 players pregame?Dourgrim wrote:He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?
I just don't get why you would even suggest the possibility of a cop, and then say why that reasoning doesn't work if:
1. A cop couldn't possibly fit the situation
2. You admit that you knew he was joking.
Why even discuss it in the first place?
Again, I'm talking strictly about your post. You talk about the possibility of GIEFF as a SK and then write it off as unlikely because a SK wouldn't out themselves so early. My question to you was along the lines of: "Why would a SK have information on 3 scum anyway?" Your reasoning for doubting the SK theory was because the SK wouldn't out themselves, instead of the more obvious answer of "the SK wouldn't have info on 3 scum". I was curious why that wasn't a part of your reasoning.Dourgrim wrote:He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do you know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.
Ok. You had said "GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia" but I mistakenly attributed that to your own point of view, rather than your interpretation of mykonian's.Dourgrim wrote:I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm voting for him, for cryin' out loud.
Why only a FoS?dejkha wrote:FoS: Dourgrimbecause this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.
I'm not sure on the theory, but I figure it's not all that meaningful anyway. At this point in the game we have no knowledge of there being a SK, so we don't hunt for a SK, we hunt for mafia. If there is a SK, and if we get to a point in the game where we know someone is the SK and know someone else is mafia and we have to make a decision between which to lynch, we can return to this discussion.MacavityLock wrote:
Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.Panzerjager wrote:Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer.
So, Macavity, you say we don't know whether or not there even is a SK, but then you vote Panzer based on the notion that if there is a SK it's him? Why would you vote for the "SK" when you yourself point out that we don't even know if there is one? Fishy.
Why bother with this explanation if your post was a joke?mykonian wrote:damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there
You don't catch scum without pressuring them first. Early in the game little things are all you have to go off of, and pressuring those little things is what eventually leads to bigger and more meaningful things. I'll agree that Dour is jumping on things that I wouldn't even bat an eye at, but I haven't seen any underlying scum motivations for his actions, at least not yet.dejkha wrote:I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.
Why apply a second random vote to the same target? And why place a second random vote in the midst of legit discussion?mykonian wrote:randomvote GIEFFbecause he had the last post.
Random votes and interactions in the "random phase" are surprisingly meaningful. Not placing a random vote actually denies the town potentially useful information.GIEFF wrote:That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.
There are other ways of telling. A SK has a specific win condition and will play in such a way to further that win con. SK's are interested in the death of everyone except for themselves. One potential telltale sign of a SK is not caring about who gets lynched as long as it isn't them.dejkha wrote:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.
Scum: An overarching term for anyone anti-town.subgenius wrote:One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?
Mafia: A specific type of scum.
You are correct in that my assumption was that GIEFF's 3 players thing was referring to 3 mafia members. The standard setup for a 12 player normal mini is 9 townies against 3 mafia. When GIEFF calls 3 people scum, I immediately connected the idea that he's calling out the entire mafia team. It would have been unnatural for me to assume he's talking about 2 mafia + 1 SK or some other variation.
------
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Why are you voting for your SK suspect when you yourself admit we don't know there is a SK?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I actually understand what Panzer is trying to say, although I don't think he's explaining it very well.
@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.
@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)
@SL: Why is bad play indicative of scum?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.springlullaby wrote:It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.
Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
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.GIEFF wrote: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.
Make sense?
Agree to some extent. A mislynch is unhelpful to the town, but isn't necessarily bad play on the parts of the people involved. Ironically, I think you just proved my point.springlullaby wrote: This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.
Agree/disagree?
A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.
In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
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.Dourgrim wrote: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.
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.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
You're wrong. I'm not trying to clear Panzer or answer for Panzer. Everything I said in that post was basically a clarification or a clearer way of saying what Panzer had already said. I thought you were voting for Panzer based on a complete misunderstanding of what he was trying to say. It's not scummy for me to put a stop to that and clear up misconceptions.
However, it turns out I was wrong and you were voting him for more legit reasons. I see the point you're making. I don't think it's necessarily conclusive. I'll wait and see what Panzer has to say about it.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
So you acknowledge it was a joke, yet you're simply choosing to take it at face value in spite of that? You realize he was joking, but you're still pressuring it as though he was being serious? How does that actually help in catching scum at all? Why do you expect a joke vote to be backed with solid logic?Panzerjager wrote:His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way. I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.
At the very least, he mentioned SK first thusly could be SK.
I'm like Dourgrim, I don't "do" joke post or acknowledge them.
I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.
Also, why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Really? Scum want to get the conversation going? Why is that?springlullaby wrote:Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell in my view.
What bothers you about it?springlullaby wrote:This looks remarkably like the 'the newbie card', or more in this instance an 'oldie card'. It amuses me but I can't say that I approve.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
No, I don't. Useful discussion is anti-scum. Games where everyone lurks are the best for scum, because it's difficult to discern who is lurking town and who is lurking scum. Getting out of the random phase and into useful discussion is pro-town, because you get to the part of the game where you actually start catching scum. The only reason scum would push for that is to look town, not because it actually benefits them at all to promote discussion.springlullaby wrote:1. So they can lynch someone. So they can appears to be scumhunting. Don't you share this view?
Ok.springlullaby wrote:2. The slightly apologetic nature of it and the fact that it says about nothing game relevant.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Please do.Panzerjager wrote:I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.
Also, can you answer this?Goatrevolt wrote:why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?
I'm highly skeptical of the bolded words above. You're describing your own mentality, here, and regardless of whether or not you were wrong in what you did, you should be able to at least confidently describe your own thought processes.Panzerjager wrote:Imust ofnot thought all that threw andprobablydidn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.
I don't really have an issue with it, but I can understand the problem other people have with it. It can look like you're trying to create the impression that you are a less capable player and thus shouldn't be as closely scrutinized or punished for mistakes.Dourgrim wrote:Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?
I can agree with this.GIEFF wrote:I echo ting's thoughts about the theory discussion. While it started off in actual game-related discussion, it's gone way past that, and is now just making it harder to read back.
I disagree. I'd like to hear GIEFF's response to the last sentence, though.Dourgrim wrote:Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:
This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.GIEFF wrote:Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
This is going into theory discussion, so I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say this: Try it and see if it works.Beyond_Birthday wrote:I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.
What if someone legitimately doesn't understand?Beyond_Birthday wrote:
Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)Goatrevolt wrote: @MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)
Also, I still want MacavityLock to answer those questions.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.Dourgrim wrote:
OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: whatGoatrevolt wrote:BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.doyou agree with in BB's uber-long post?
Basically, anywhere he says that bad logic = scummy as a blanket statement I disagree with (likewise for good logic = townie).
As for the rest of his post, I'm not going to go through and pick out things I agree with. Rather, I'll bring up issues I have with other aspects of his post that aren't related to the above.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Eh, I guess you answered that already. Reading is fundamental.
Anyway:
Your response:GIEFF wrote:At what point did you realize it was a joke?
However in an earlier post when I asked you, you said:Panzerjager wrote:When I re-read it when you asked me. I just assumed that I would have felt the same way twice.
Which doesn't fit with your above statements.Panzerjager wrote:Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way he said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
mykonian: Nobody is going to make an obvious lie on purpose. Your argument in defense of Panzer is essentially: "He acted scummy, and scum aren't going to act scummy because people attack scummy play." The error is that nobody acts scummy on purpose, but scum do act scummy by nature of what they are trying to accomplish vs. what a townie is trying to accomplish.
Spring: I'm curious what YOUR stance on Panzer is?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
This is true. I'm suspicious of some of the more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer. Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).GIEFF wrote:Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stage
I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally, I did not find it conclusive, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.
I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now. I think Panzer has been scummy, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet. Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle. I want to scour the thread first and try to get a better feel. Furthermore, I'm still suspicious of MacavityLock's transformation from "Panzer is SK to Panzer is also top pick for mafia" and I want him to answer my questions. Hearing from Zilla would also be good.
Really? What changed? Compare the above bolded to the below from early game:Panzerjager wrote:Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told himslips were minor tells
Panzerjager wrote:I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.
@subgenius: I disagree with your assessment that Panzer's attack on SL was some deflection tactic. He got called out for not scum hunting and was pressured to do some scum hunting of his own. That's what he came out with. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that both town and scum are going to at least put up an effort at scumhunting after being called out. It's pretty much a null-tell for me. However, I do somewhat agree with your underlying point that Panzer was doing little to no actual scumhunting prior to getting called out, as evidenced by him attacking SL 3 pages later.Panzerjager wrote:I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.
@GIEFF: I disagree with some of your points about Panzer needing to provide original content. Is providing original content the mark of a true townie?
------
At any rate, I'm keeping my vote on MacavityLock for now. The case on GIEFF sounds more like frustration at his playstyle rather than legit suspicion. I don't see how trying to convince others to see your point of view is scummy, at all.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I think it'll be more distraction than value. Also, why did you attribute my quote to Beyond_Birthday?GIEFF wrote:Would anybody like to see the analysis? It's extremely long, and may just be more distraction than it's worth.
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.mykonian wrote:since when is this a serious vote? don't make it one.
Why do you think it's a joke?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
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.mykonian wrote: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.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I'd rather you read through the game and provided your own opinions before people start trying to influence you with theirs.Zilla wrote:Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
People have presented cases in the thread with varying levels of merit that should give you a fairly solid indication of where they stand.Zilla wrote:No dice, I want to see where people stand before they try to appeal to me. If their case has any merit, they should be able to present it themselves.
Having people tell you before you read the thread what to look for or who they think is scum is simply going to bias your opinions. If I give you this amazing case about why X is scum, then when you read through the thread you're going to do so with my ideas fresh in your mind. It can and very likely will color your perspective.
You will see who people suspect and where people stand when you read the thread. Knowing beforehand is unhelpful.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Are you even reading my posts, or are you just mad that I'm trying to shut down your attempt to get the abbreviated summary of the game rather than just reading it for yourself?Zilla wrote:I'm really not liking your reaction to this.
Vote: Goatrevolt
I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.
You're pushing for information that is available in the thread, and that you can easily see by simplyreading the gamesomething I would expect any replacement to do. You also have completely ignored the reasoning I gave for why I think it is a bad idea. Please read that, then get back to me.
Why does me having no votes matter at all? What don't you like about my attitude? Is agreeing to your ever whim the mark of a townie?Zilla wrote:He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.
Have you ever read a book after having someone explain the entire storyline to you and what to look for? It's a lot different than reading a book completely unawares. You are influenced by what you expect to see and things you were told to look for. It colors your perception.Zilla wrote:Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.
For example: If I tell you: "Hey MacativyLock is scum. Check out the way he does this and this when you read through the thread," then when you actually read the thread you might say "ah yeah, I see him doing it there!" and come to the conclusion that he's scummy. However, if you read completely unbiased, you might pick out some town tells of ML or get a completely different read on him, then you did since I told you what to look for in the thread.
Seriously. I can't make this simpler. Just read the game. If you were uninterested in reading the game, you should not have replaced in.
Wrong. The source of information you desire is already in the thread. I don't see how I'm stopping a source of information that is readily available to you by simply reading the game.Zilla wrote:He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.
I feel like I'm a broken record...You probably see where this is going already. I've explained my vote on MacavityLock. I've given stances on the top vote getters. This information and more available by reading the thread. LOL.Zilla wrote:He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).
That is absolutely no different than the rest of the game. We all started out with no information on each other and have learned much by playing the game. You have nothing to distinguish one poster from the other, because you haven't read the game and learned information allowing you to distinguish one player from another...Zilla wrote:Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.
All you're asking for is to have other players tell you how to think. Is that seriously what you want?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Read my posts. Go to the quick reply section, select Display posts by: Goatrevolt and you can look at all my posts in isolation. If you want to know where I stand on a whole slew of issues I suggest you look there. I'm not going to slave away at a summary when you have complete access to that information yourself.Zilla wrote:That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.
I have no clue what you mean by "own their case." I copyrighted my case on page 4 and will prosecute any attempt to replicate it without express written consent. I am in full ownership of it.
I also want to point out that this is wrong. Somewhere on page 10/11 I made a post that completely outlined my opinions on Panzer and others. Did you even look at the last few pages before just making this baseless assertion?Zilla wrote:He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).
--------
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday
Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Paradoxical buzzwords with no backing are pretty much meaningless. If you want to call me aggressively defensive, define what aggressively defensive is and show me how scum are more likely to do it than town.Zilla wrote:Goat's too aggressively defensive
It's funny how you admit your vote is bad, but justify it by saying "other people have bad votes" and then try to suggest I'm scum because you think my vote on MacavityLock is bad, when you don't even know the reasons I was voting him.Zilla wrote:, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).
Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.
"Flying under the radar" couldn't be further from the truth. I'm one of the most contributing members of this game. Obviously, you wouldn't know that, having not read it, and making no effort to acquaint yourself with any of my posts this game, even though your vote is on me.
My reasons for voting BB are not poorly made. They are accurate depictions of his play, and he made no effort to dispute them in his last post.
What is wrong about my first two claims then. If you disagree, please enlighten us why.Zilla wrote:
The only thing I can get behind is the last one, because seeing his reads, he really does seem to have a lot of fence-riding stances.Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances.
I'm noting the irony that you are defending BB and attacking me on the basis of "the MacvityLock wagon not panning out", when BB's last post suggested ML was his most suspicious player. You don't seem to have any issue with him expressing suspicion of ML, but you do have issue with me doing so. Face the facts, my vote on ML has absolutely nothing to do with your suspicion of me whatsoever. You are entirely suspicious of me because I "pissed you off" by not giving you what you wanted. You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.Zilla wrote:However, the vote basically being an aside at the end makes that vote switch seem really strange, and it's possible he's just giving up the ghost on a MacCavity wagon that didn't pan out.
You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote. Since then, you have attempted to back up your vote by:
1. Saying I haven't provided content, have been floating through this game, or haven't provided my take on top wagons. You even mentioned that I hadn't done so in the last "2 or so pages," however, directly within the last two pages is a post by me providing exactly the kind of summary you are looking for. I called you out for this in my most recent post; you ignored it. You're not taking the facts into consideration, because they debunk your emotion-driven case. Quite frankly, I have provided a wealth of content, have not been floating through this game (many players are guilty of this, whom you appear uninterested with), and have in fact provided my take on the top wagons. So you tell me, why are you ignoring this information?
2. Calling into question the solidity of my vote on MacavityLock, under the basis that I am alone on the wagon (as if more votes lend more validity), and that I haven't explained my vote (I have, multiple times). These are errors that could be cleared up by reading through my posts (something I gave you simple instructions on how to do in my last post) and figuring out for yourself. I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.
3. Saying my reasons for voting BB are poorly made. You haven't backed this up. Nor did you ask me to elaborate further on my reasoning. So how do you know those reasons are poor, and why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.
Those above 3 reasons are all weak, and you have shown a blatant willingess toignorethe evidence suggesting you are wrong.
Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted. Rather than BS clearly flawed reasons to keep your vote on me, based not even on misinterpretations, but on a willful ignorance of the actual state of the game and the actual evidence in it, I suggest you come clean and admit that your vote is entirely because I made you mad.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I want to point out that I am still suspicious of MacavityLock, despite moving my vote off of him. I still have issues with his interactions with panzer and the responses he gave to me when I pressured him on it originally, but I don't really see the point of keeping my vote on him while he is absent.
I reread part of the thread today, which led to my vote on BB, for the three reasons I gave.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
If someone accuses me of something that I contest the accuracy of, I will throw it back at them and make them explain it. That's not scummy at all. When you accuse me of "aggressively defensive" behavior and imply that's scummy, you bet I'm going to ask you to explain yourself. What, did you expect me to just let it slide?Zilla wrote:Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.
As for what you have already said, I disagree entirely. You say that scum want to shut down the possibility of them being scum. Yes, that's correct. You then go on to imply that townies do not want to also do this, which is wrong. I have never once been lynched as town. There's a reason for that. It's because I defend against cases people bring against me and I shut down "possibilities for me to be scum." It's not scummy of me to do this. Avoiding lynches is a very important characteristic of a townie. I react strongly against arguments brought against me in every game I'm in. And it's not scummy for me to defend myself.
Misrep? Where? I've bolded some key passages for your reading pleasure.Zilla wrote:
It's funny how you misrepresent my argument. Wait, no it's not.
It's funny how you admit your vote is bad, but justify it by saying "other people have bad votes" and then try to suggest I'm scum because you think my vote on MacavityLock is bad, when you don't even know the reasons I was voting him.Zilla wrote:, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off himbecause my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughableas well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).
Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.
1. I said you admit your vote was bad. The bolded sections suggest this. You said people are attacking you because your vote was bad. Now, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were explaining their take on your vote, not your own take on it. So you don't think your vote is bad, just they do. The 2nd bolded section, however, is where you say their vote is bad "as well." The "As Well" suggests that their vote and your vote are both bad.
2. Justify it by saying other people have bad votes. Because X makes a bad vote doesn't mean you are justified in likewise making a bad vote.
3. You've said numerous times my vote on MacavityLock was bad. I don't need to really prove this.
4. You've given no knowledge that you actually understand the situation or reasons I voted MacavityLock, proving that your capability to assert number 3 is flawed.
Please point out where I have misrepresented you.
I haven't refused to justify my vote on MacavityLock. In fact, I have already justified that vote in at least 2 places (maybe 3) within the thread. I'm leaving this open to you. You can spend the 2 minutes looking it up, or you can continue to play in ignorance. I can't be cryptic about something I have already stated clearly within this thread.Zilla wrote:Further, you refused to justify it, and hardly even justified your vote switch. You continue to be cryptic about why you were voting Macavity. I really think you never bought your case to begin with, you certainly dismissed it fast enough if your reasons for voting Birthday are stronger than those on Macavity.
My reasons for voting Birthday are not necessarily stronger than my reasons for voting MacavityLock, they are simply more relevant. ML is absent, could possibly have flaked, etc. and it's not really providing a whole world of information for me to keep my vote on him. I haven't dismissed my case on MacavityLock. I've pushed it aside after 5+ pages with no response. And even if my case on BB is stronger (it may very well be) I don't see how that means my case on ML was originally weak at all.
In fact, if you want to prove that my original reasons for voting MacavityLock were weak, then go back through the thread and find them, and show me how wrong I was. Otherwise, you can cut the unsupported accusations.
Then you do it.Zilla wrote:Just because you've got vocalized opinions does not mean nobody is looking at you. I've read a few criticisms, but they seem half-hearted, and easily distracted by other things. Nobody has really given you a good once-over from what I've seen.
If it's a ridiculously weak accusation, then he should be able to easily dispel it. They may be 3 1-liners, but that doesn't mean they are weak. I'm accusing him of some pretty heavy stuff. Does how long a case is affect how good it is?Zilla wrote:I wouldn't say he needs to because it's a rediculously weak accusation to begin with. If you want him to respond, you've got to give him something to respond to, not just three off-the-cuff one-liners.
What clues has he dug for? I've seen a lot of detached summary, and a couple of places where he actually asked players questions.Zilla wrote:Absense of scumhunting: although he's been playing detached, he's been behind his fair share of accusations and gone digging for clues. You need to establish his lack of scumhunting.
He was voting for Panzer. GIEFF produced additional reasons against Panzer. BB disagreed with those additional reasons and unvoted. It's suspicious because the additional reasons didn't make the original reasons (that BB was voting based on) any less valid. It's also suspicious because the timing of his jump off the Panzer wagon was at the time when the wagon was naturally dying down anyway, and he did so for weak reasons. His suspicion of Panzer didn't look natural at all. If he was actually suspicious of Panzer for the reasons he voted him, then additional reasoning he disagreed with wouldn't change his mind, prompting an unvote.Zilla wrote:You need to elaborate on the so called "Suspicious disengage" also.
I only make claims if I believe them to be true. People only attempt to disprove my claims if they think I'm wrong, in which case scumhunting occurs as we get to determine the motivations and reasoning behind why people agree or disagree. I also frequently ask people direct questions to get a feel for their mindset, and I also frequently make very specific claims about people. In no way am I ever unaccountable. I am fully accountable for everything I say.Zilla wrote:I'm going to come right out and say right now that I absolutely hate your playstyle, where you make generalized claims and wait for people to disprove them. It's tedious menial work, it jams up actual scumhunting, and it makes you unaccountable.
I do find it humorous that you are attempting to generalize my playstyle in one paragraph under the impression that I only make generalizations (which is untrue). I also am not surprised at all that you hate my playstyle. I understand that I make it frustrating for people who attack me, because I insist on answering every point thrown against me, and generally do so thoroughly. It works though. I've caught 3 scum recently based simply on the manner in which they attack me. So i don't consider it a waste at all.
I've had my vote on MacavityLock since like page 4. In fact, I probably had the longest standing vote in the game. Disengage at the drop of a hat is a gross misrepresentation based on a flawed knowledge of the game. This has been a constant theme in your attacks.Zilla wrote:He actually cared to explain why he thought Macavity was suspicoius, while you disengaged at the drop of a hat.
You have, repeatedly.Zilla wrote:
Who said it did?Face the facts, my vote on ML has absolutely nothing to do with your suspicion of me whatsoever.
Glad to know we agree. So why do you insist on adding BS reasoning to your case, then? Your suspicion of me is entirely based on frustration with my playstyle, and anger at me not giving you what you wanted. Why does this make me scum, and why do you insist on using flawed external reasons to try to make your vote look like more than it actually is?Zilla wrote:
Someone came late to the party, welcome aboard. I said that.You are entirely suspicious of me because I "pissed you off" by not giving you what you wanted.
This is a first for me, I'm intrigued. Let's examine:Zilla wrote:
Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town.You are trying to give post facto reasoning to support your initial frustration-based vote on me.
Back this up. You don't know my reasons for voting MacavityLock, so you don't know this to be true. Furthermore, I have expressly stated that "logic" is not necessarily going to be the basis for my votes. Scum can have great logic, and townies can have poor logic. If I were voting on logic alone, I would be voting for you right now, because you've shown consistently poor logic in attacking me. What I mean by that is you're attacking me repeatedly based on a completely flawed understanding of my play this game, which is facilitated by the fact that you don't even know how I've played this game.Zilla wrote:You're pushing people on stupid non logic
Nope. I have been doing distinctly the opposite this game, especially in regards to Panzer. Back this up.Zilla wrote:you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you
Nope. I've tried to bring clarity and get to the heart of the matter throughout the thread, and I feel I have succeeded in plenty of circumstances. Quite a lot of the cases that have taken place in this game are based off of questions I have originally asked.Zilla wrote:and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static
Yes, ma'am. You are quite hypersensitive yourself, judging by the way you jumped all over me because of playstyle differences and frustration.Zilla wrote:and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you.
Again, why do you keep trying to make your vote out to be more than it is, with weak external cases?Zilla wrote:
Again, welcome to the party.You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.
And you act like I have to provide it because you asked for it, when you have shown the capability of finding it for yourself. Originally, I refused to provide it, because I wanted you to read the thread free of outside influence. Now I'm doing it because I want to see how long you are willing to attack me without having any knowledge whatsoever about what you are attacking me over. I'm working on the base assumption that a townie is interested in knowing whether or not they have legitimate basis for a vote, whereas scum don't seem to really care.Zilla wrote:I read that, it's not what I'm looking for, if you mean 240 (I don't see why you're so adamant about not posting any link or anything, you act like this information shouldn't be freely accessible, only the worthy should be able to know your stance, and you must make the sacred pilgrimage to page whatever to obtain such knowledge).
I can't remember the post offhand, but I believe I mentioned how I think Panzer's actions have been scummy but I'm not sold on his wagon based on the speed/lack of opposition/and I wanted the day to continue so we can hear from people who haven't said anything. That covers about 2/3's of the game. I think I reaffirmed that I was keeping my vote on MacavityLock, and that I was unsold on the GIEFF case that was starting to build up. That about covers the rest of the game.Zilla wrote:That post's basically "I'm suspicious of this!" but is full of empty accusations. To be honest, if that really is your idea of the state the game is in, I'm not buying it.
Since that point, I think Panzer has been a lot more pro-town. I agreed with his push on BB, and although I disagreed with his vote on you, I think he came out of it looking pro-town. I think BB is scummy.
I'll admit that I could probably be a bit less stubborn and just give in to what you want, but likewise, you could be a little less stubborn, get over your qualms with my playstyle, and figure out for yourself where my positions are. THEN, once you've learned that, you can question me directly on those points and determine for yourself whether or not I'm accountable.Zilla wrote:It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.
Militant, Macavity, Ting, Dourgrim (recent), springlullaby (since you replaced in). Possibly others, who I'm not thinking of.Zilla wrote:
Many players whom you care not to name?Quite frankly, I have provided a wealth of content, have not been floating through this game (many players are guilty of this, whom you appear uninterested with)
Except my vote on BB. Except my declaration that I want you to read the thread from an unbiased vantage point, of course. I don't see what has been vague about those.Zilla wrote:Seriously, ever since I've started asking for information, you've yet to post anything concrete, instead you give all these vague ethereal shadow statements, perfectly fitting for scum trying to stay at a politically prime spot.
You see, I think it's funny. I have a lot of information in the thread. You are accusing me of not providing information. I think a simple and elegant solution to this dilemma would be for you to read the information I have provided already in the thread. You want reasons for my vote on MacavityLock. I've given those. You want my opinion on top wagons (panzer), I've given that.
I also think it's funny that you are accusing me of being scum trying to remain under the radar, when I could have just provided you with a summary and floated away on my "under the radar cloud." Instead I opted for the moral high ground of asking you to read the thread from an unbiased perspective. Oh, the folly!
Then ask me questions. What's vague. What do you want to know more about. What do you disagree with. This isn't a 1-way street. You are not a databank that we all just dump info into and then you come out with a solution. If you think my response to X has been vague or shadowy, then why aren't you making an effort to divine how I "truly" feel about X?Zilla wrote:
Your takes are vague.and have in fact provided my take on the top wagons. So you tell me, why are you ignoring this information?
So what's your good reason for being the only one voting me. You dislike my playstyle and somehow this difference makes me scum?Zilla wrote:Normally, if you're the only person on somebody, you've got to have a good reason. Seems like you dorpped it in favor of Birthday though.
Have you read it? I feel so proud. What was vague and shoddy about it?Zilla wrote:
Again, vague and shoddy explanation., and that I haven't explained my vote (I have, multiple times).
Hahaha. If I summarize my points, will you read my original posts to compare? This could be a win-win mutually beneficial situation here.Zilla wrote:
You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.(something I gave you simple instructions on how to do in my last post) and figuring out for yourself. I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.
And no, I'm not worried about getting facts wrong or any of that. Do you honestly think scum are incapable of summarizing something they have already posted?
Your entire case on me is built from the premise that I am some scared scum afraid to post in this thread and afraid to state my beliefs out of fear of getting caught. This is humorous in that, 1. had I simply provided the summary you asked for you wouldn't have even bothered attacking me, and 2. I have not shown any fear of posting my opinions or beliefs throughout the entirety of the thread, yet you are too stubborn to evaluate this on your own.
You keep calling my reasons lame. Why should I back up my reasoning to you? You've already made up your mind on them.Zilla wrote:You're fucking joking. Seriously. First off, you didn't back up your lame reasons to begin with, and secondly, it's implied that you need to elaborate on your reasoning.
There are a few reasons why I haven't gone into further detail on my vote. One of them happens to involve the way you reacted to it, which I think tells a lot about you. The other reason hasn't come to pass yet, so I shall hold off for now.
Your second point is actually pretty good. I didn't intentionally use the word "us", but yes my mindset must have been from the perspective of "us vs. Zilla" since I subconsciously went for that over "me". However, you are suggesting that it was me from a scum mindset pairing myself with town, whereas an equally plausible answer is that it's me with a town mindset pairing myself with town, because I am town. Good point, though.Zilla wrote:
I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.So how do you know those reasons are poor, and why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.
Was this sarcasm. Why use them if you know they are weak?Zilla wrote:
Yes, those above three reasons that you just provided are all incredibly weak.Those above 3 reasons are all weak, and you have shown a blatant willingess toignorethe evidence suggesting you are wrong.
I'll give you a summary in my next post.Zilla wrote:What evidence are you even talking about? You act like it exists, but you'll be damned if you have to actually bring it up or use it. Seriuosly.
That's a bit of a misrep. I asked GIEFF "Is original content the mark of a townie" because he was using the case that Panzer hadn't provided enough original content. I think that was a highly relevant and useful question. It led to GIEFF looking through old Panzer games and getting a meta-read about Panzer's use of original content. That gives us fresh information on both Panzer and GIEFF.Zilla wrote:From the posts I've read, he's extremely vague when he's not debating the smallest of minutia that doesn't matter in the slightest. Some of his phrases, like his comment on "Is original content actually pro-town?" seem so transparently scummy that I'm surprised nobody has picked up on him.
I never asked "Is original content pro-town" in a vacuum as you seem to imply. And this is part of the reason I want you to reread the thread, because you are picking up on stuff like this that is perfectly reasonable, but out of context appears scummy to you. My personal opinion was that original content is not the "mark of a townie." As in, someone can be pro-town and display pro-town characteristics even by agreeing with other's cases and following those all game. I think the resulting discussion that came from me asking that question was a huge benefit to the game.
Trivial to you maybe. For example, you thought my "is original content" question to be trivial. I just showed above how it was highly meaningful to the game.Zilla wrote:Reading him gives me a headache, again because of how he just focuses on the smallest and most trivial of things.
I hope you don't replace out because of issues you have with my playstyle. I'm not trying to drive anyone off.Zilla wrote:I almost want to ask for a replacement because I really don't like how this game is going, especially with all these really bad arguments. Something about how we got out of RVS isn't right, and I honestly think we haven't learned much of anything of real value.
----------------
Damn, that was a long post. I decided about midway through the post that I'm going to give a summary to Zilla. I'll provide that soonish.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Have issues - Think he is scummy because ofZilla wrote:Underlining vague statements that need further explanation.
Goatrevolt wrote:I want to point out that I am still suspicious of MacavityLock, despite moving my vote off of him. I stillhave issueswithhis interactions with panzerandthe responseshe gave to me when I pressured him on it originally, but I don't really see the point of keeping my vote on him while he is absent
Interaction with Panzer - He voted Panzer under suspicion of Panzer being the SK. He also noted that we should not be hunting the SK. I found that to be scummy, as he is essentially doing exactly what he labeled as not pro-town.
The Responses - He answered my question by saying Panzer was also his top suspect for mafia as well as SK, reasoning that was notoriously absent from his original post. I asked him questions about this, and those questions are still outstanding. He hasn't posted since then.
Behavioral/mindset stuff from panzer - That is the stuff I explained in the remainder of that paragraph.Zilla wrote:Here's your precious 240, which supposedly has the substance I'm looking for. Vagueness is underlined.
Goatrevolt wrote:
This is true. I'm suspicious of some ofGIEFF wrote:Goatrevolt seems suspicious of Panzer but has not voted him since the random stagethe more behavioral/mindset stuff from Panzer.Some of the inconsistencies in when he believed it was a joke/not believed it was a joke. The one post where he used wishy-washy language to describe his thought processes (I must have...I probably...).ZILLA: WHY DOES THIS MEAN ANYTHING?
I'm also suspicious of the Dejkha is a townie thing at this point. Originally,I did not find it conclusive, for the reasons mykonian suggested. If you think player A is scum, and player A is attacking player B, your mindset is from the point of view of B being a townie pressured by scum. I fully expected Panzer to come in with this explanation, and I would have bought it, because it's entirely reasonable. However, his explanation was that he wrote townie out of laziness to look up Dejkha's name? I have a difficult time buying that.ZILLA: YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTED ONE HECK OF A WEIRD HIERARCHY HERE
I'm pretty much on the same boat as SL right now.I think Panzer has been scummy, and I would guess that there is a better than average chance he is scum. However, I'm not comfortable ending the day yet.Something seems off about this wagon, and maybe it's just the fact that it seems too easy and nobody (besides mykonian) is opposed to it in principle.
Why does this mean anything: He was asked to explain why he did something. His response used phrases along the lines of "I think I did it because" and "I probably was thinking this." I find that suspicious because he was asked to explain why he did something, but yet he was using wishy-washy language to do so. That suggests a mentality of him trying to make up reasons why he did something, not why he actually did it. Do you see what I mean? It's like if I asked you: Why did you eat that candy bar? If you said "because I was hungry" I would accept that explanation. If you said "I probably ate it because I was hungry" I would be suspicious. You know why you ate it, so why are you saying probably, suggesting a lack of understanding?
I did not find it conclusive - The next 2 sentences explain this.
I think Panzer has been scummy - The above two paragraphs explain this
Something seems off about... - I can see your scum-to-town buddy point. Scum often will do things like this, despite the fact that it actually does not make them look better at all. So yes, that is a valid point.
My argument is essentially a playstyle description of myself. I am a much better scum player than a town player, as evidenced by my win-loss records on this site. As town, I am better at identifying townies than identifying scum. What I often do is pick out people I identify as town, and then find scum via process of elimination. I generally identify townies based entirely on what could be classified as "gut." I get a feel based on things they say, or the way they say something or a post that seems unlikely scum would make because it draws unnecessary suspicion to themselves, or something like that.
In essence, I think Panzer has played in a scummy fashion. The logic adds up to him being scum: the inconsistencies, the inability to explain his behavior, etc.. My gut is saying no, though, which is part of the reason I have hesitated on the wagon. Despite his failings in explaining himself throughout the thread, I've felt some of his plays have seemed genuine. The logic suggests he is scum, but I hesitate on the gut aspect, and in addition I wasn't comfortable ending the day with a lot of open ends. You replaced in, but hadn't read up yet, Militant hadn't posted anything, Macavity had open questions posed to him, etc.
See logic v. gut above. Eventually there is a point where you ignore gut in the face of overwhelming logic. I will continue to pick at inconsistencies in case my gut is wrong.Zilla wrote:Here's a good point, but you JUST SAID that you didn't trust the wagon on Panzer. You've got some major cognitive dissonance going on here, and it's ironic you're pointing out another inconsistency while creating one yourself.
I don't think his wagon was scum driven. I don't have a terribly strong read on GIEFF, but I'm willing to accept his scumhunting as legitimate thus far. The other "driver" was myself, even though I never actually committed to the wagon.Zilla wrote:All in all, I'm able to glean from this post that you think Panzer is scummy but that his wagon is scum driven, and you're voting MacavityLock for changing his mind about Panzer's scum flavor. Weaksauce. Then you challenge a few people and then say you don't suspect them. The whole nature of this post really seems like straddling a fence with your feet on both sides.
My vote on ML wasn't weaksauce. I originally voted him for a glaring contradiction in actions and words (explained above). I continued to pressure him for merely changing his reasoning but keeping the vote when called out on his contradiction.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I will provide the extended reasoning eventually. I'm generally a very straightforward player. I think X is scum because of Y. I don't think Q is scum because of R. Sometimes that's ineffective. Lately, I've been trying out a new strategy of occasionally tossing in votes or statements, but not going into detail about them. The reactions to that can be pretty telling.Zilla wrote:I really don't like your double standard, where you're allowed to be vague (unspecific, undetailed, whatever) and then demand others "refute" your claims through evidence when you haven't even provided any of your own (This is about your Birthday vote).
I think your double standard point is fine. I understand now what you mean by that, and yes, to some extent that is true. One thing, however, is that you specifically mentioned disagreement with 2 of my points on BB. I don't think I displayed any double standard whatsoever in asking for your reasons for disagreeing with those two points.
I'm not letting him lurk off his accusations. When he comes back to the thread, he will still have my questions looming, and I will still be here. My vote on him was accomplishing nothing, though. My vote on BB is much more productive.Zilla wrote:I'm a bit intrigued again why you dropped Macavity for Birthday and just let Macavity lurk off his accusations.
I think BB has been as scummy as anyone has been thus far.Zilla wrote:I'd understand if Birthday was actually being crazy scummy, but your reasons are hardly even scum tells in themselves (lack of scumhunting? Town falls prey to this, and it's pretty subjective how much is enough.
It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon?Zilla wrote:"suspicious disengage" from somebody you haven't voted for yourself is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. As for the fence-riding, some examples would strengthen your case.)
Nope. This one is based on his contributions, and has nothing to do with my gut.Zilla wrote:It seems you've got a bone to pick with Birthday, but you haven't really made anything of a case on him other than "he looks scummy." Seems more of your gut? That's not going to win anybody to your side.
I'll let mykonian respond to your case. I don't find it very compelling. Maybe if mykonian asked me to vote for him I would be more inclined.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
It's completely independent of Panzer's alignment. It's possible he jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of an opportunity. It's possible he jumped off a townie when he no longer thought he could justify his vote. What I do know is that he jumped off Panzer based on a poor justification that suggests his initial reasons for voting Panzer were insincere. How panzer's alignment relates to this isn't terribly relevant and something that can be determined later.Zilla wrote:
The way you phrase it, I assume you're suspicious of BB for withdrawing his vote in a manner that indicates they may be paired, and that he was distancing for his vote. A lot of your logic contradicts itself, so I can't really tell if you're voting Birthday contingent on Panzer being town or scum.Goatrevolt wrote:It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
The panzer wagon and the Dour/GIEFF brush up would fit this description. The other "cases" present in the game thus far have been fairly clear.Zilla wrote:I'm saying right now, no, I'm not going to forego commenting on the current game before finishing rereading, because this game is a mess. I know this stems from Panzer changing his tune about how he viewed your SK post. I know what I need to know. I think you guys don't even want to go back there because you don't even know what the case is about anymore. Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I don't see this as being a "real possibility" at all. If both mykonian and Panzer are scum together, I will be very shocked. Why do you think we need to test this out, and what will we learn if, say, we lynch mykonian and he is town?Dourgrim wrote:As it stands, the Zilla vs. the world argument kinda overwhelmed the thread there for a bit, but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it. The cases being made are, as Zilla has pointed out, somewhat removed from the actual discussion, so everything's a bit on the hazy side (too much quoting and cross-referencing to be clear). GIEFF has made his points abundantly clear, and mykonian and Panzer have defended themselves against the case. The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?
Regarding "Dourscum" I almost voted GIEFF when he told you it was accidental. However, his reasoning a few posts later was basically the one thing he could have said that would have made sense. I'm willing to accept that explanation for the time being.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I disagree. I think the role of a townie involves doing both (although looking pro-town is often directly associated with catching scum). Regardless, this isn't relevant. Moving on...Beyond_Birthday wrote:First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum." Since my lack of scum hunting is a legitimate point, I will make no attempt to defend that. I have been lazy, which is not an excuse so I have no response.
I'm going to ignore these for now, because they aren't relevant to the discussion of "why did you."Beyond_Birthday wrote:Point 1: BB may have jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of opportunity.
This is incorrect, and in fact allowing myself a mild amount of wifom, I think I would ride the wagon as long as I could and be talked of unvoting. As a scum partner, this would be perfect for distancing.
Point 2: He may have jumped off townie now unable to justify his vote.
Meh, counter productive scum play. Better is to defend Panzer, which my last posts does (oh noes! I have proven myself doing something scummy!)
Really?Beyond_Birthday wrote:My reason for voting Panzer is that Gieff appeared to have some decent points
Nowhere in your reasoning here do I see any mention whatsoever of GIEFF's points.Beyond_Birthday wrote:
Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?Panzerjager wrote: I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.
eh heh heh...NO.
Vote Panzerjager
This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.
Now would be a great time to "explain your playstyle" the way Dour would, as you claim. You officially make no sense.
And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?Beyond_Birthday wrote:I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)
To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.
Now, you are saying the attacks bore no fruit, suggesting that you don't think GIEFF and Panzer's back and forth produced anything useful. And you're voting on GIEFF's logic, despite saying his back and forth bore no fruit? And then, you even go so far to say Panzer looked like a victimized townie. Interesting how your vote was on the victimized townie.
I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:Beyond_Birthday wrote:Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.
1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.
2. You voted Panzer because of GIEFF's reasons for thinking Panzer was scum.
I'm guessing number 2 was your reason here, but I'll address either possibility.
1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.
2. You voted based on GIEFF's reasons for suspecting Panzer. I'm going to ignore for one second the fact that you never mentioned this when you voted for Panzer and haven't suggested this at all in the thread and that your constant disagreement with GIEFF suggests the unlikelihood you would barn his reasoning.
So, let's brush that aside and assume that you actually did use GIEFF's reasons to vote Panzer. Issue number 1: GIEFF providing additional reasoning to suspect Panzer that you disagree with does not invalidate his original reasoning for suggesting Panzer is scum, which you agreed with. Issue number 2: If his additional reasons prompted you to go back and reread the original reasons, leading you to realize that you disagreed with them, then you certainly voted based on a very shallow understanding of the reasons you voted for. In essence, your vote was extremely weak because you didn't even bother to verify the reasons behind it. For a 4th vote on a target, that is very suspicious.
This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:Beyond_Birthday wrote:I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.
Oh snap!Beyond_Birthday wrote:I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.
------------------
So, to clarify my points on BB:
Lack of scumhunting: Admittedly not a huge selling point on its own, however I think it does add to the case when you also consider the scumminess of the rest of his play. Furthermore, he has constantly suggested that you shouldn't try to appear pro-town, you should try to find scum and let that do the talking. He's made no efforts to find the scum
Lack of solid stances: This is self-explanatory, really. He simply hasn't made solid stances this game. Look back through and see a lot of theory discussion, a lot of "you're wrong" or "this is stupid" and precious little, "I think you are scum."
Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon: Read this post. To summarize: He made a weak vote to get on the Panzer wagon, and has suggested his vote was based off of GIEFF's reasons long after the fact, despite the fact that all evidence suggests this to not be true. He jumped off the Panzer wagon based on weak reasoning, and reasoning that show his initial voting reasons were really poor. He mentioned that he didn't think Panzer was going to be a lynch, despite placing the 4th vote on the wagon, having a 5th vote accumulate on the wagon, posting many times while keeping his vote on the 5/7 wagon (with others expressing suspicion and willingness to vote Panzer), suggesting clues about mykonian's alignment based on Panzer's alignment, and saying himself that every vote after the random stage should be a vote for a lynch.
So yeah, I think he's scum.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
This is an excellent point. I'm going to give you "grief" about one thing though. His username is GIEFF, not GRIEFF.subgenius wrote:That's a much longer quote than I usually like to post, but my question is this: According to the GRIEFF scale of lying, I think this case more than qualifies BB as a liar. At one point he agrees that panzer was lying, and later he calls it a mere random vote. These points of view are contradictory, so clearly one of them is a lie. You have said it is scummy to inconsistently apply scum tells to different players, yet you continue to primarily pursue the Panzer wagon even though I think it is obvious that BB's vote against Panzer was far more serious than Panzer's vote against Miko. According to your cases, BB and Panzer are guilty of the same scum tell, yet BB lied about a vote which was cast after the random voting stage. Why do you continue to push the Panzer wagon? If any lie is worthy of a lynch, would you be equally content to lynch either of them?
Questions: What is your own take on BB? Who do you think is scum? Despite posting this, why is your vote still on Panzer as well?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Beyond_Birthday placed the 4th vote on the Panzer wagon based on insubstantial reasoning, and then unvoted based on a post that should not have negated his original voting reasons. He has had wishy-washy stances throughout the game, has not contributed towards scumhunting, and has provided dubious and frankly unbelievable arguments after the fact in regards to why he voted Panzer in the first place. His reasoning looks like made up reasons to try to fit the holes in his play rather than legitimate reasons that he actually believed.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I feel compelled to address this, mostly because I think you are wrong about BB and are dismissing my arguments against him purely because I have presented them and not based on what they actually say.Zilla wrote:Goatrevolt constantly discusses meta and detracts from active scumhunting, while appearing to present an "aggressive" case that is actually based on very little actual information. Also refused very loudly to provide a summary of his opinion on the current state of the game.
I will go ahead and explain right now why I didn't include the full rationale behind my vote on BB in the post where I voted him. There were 2 reasons. The first is to see how other people react to my vote. Who disagrees, who agrees? The second is to see how BB reacts to the bare vote. BB's reaction was to ignore it, telling us nothing. Zilla's reaction, however, was to completely dismiss itwithout even knowing what it was about. In her first post following my vote, Zilla didn't even ask me to further explain the 3 reasons I presented. Instead she said my vote was weak, and she didn't even know the reasons why I voted him.
In essence, Zilla dismisses my attack on BB entirely because she doesn't like my playstyle, and not at all based on the points I actually raised against him. I don't know if that relates at all to scum/town, but I will say that it is poor play. So, I think you should get over yourself and your hissy fit about not liking how I play and actually evaluate what I have to say, and not how I went about saying it.
Discusses Meta - Sure you're not confusing me with GIEFF? I have never once agreed or disagreed with a case based on meta, presented meta arguments against anyone, or even hinted at doing so. Come again?
Detracts from scumhunting - This is an entirely biased viewpoint based on your own perceptions of who is scum. If Birthday is scum, as I believe to be true, then your push on mykonian is what is detracting from scumhunting.
Aggressive case - What does it matter if my case is aggressive or not. My vote is based on a lot of information. Read post 345. My vote is certainly based on more information than your vote on Mykonian, which is entirely based on a weak circumstancial random vote and your dislike of him attacking you.
Loudly refusing - A loud refusal to do your will is clearly how we determine scum from town. Good thing you've adopted this principle, because the two players you have attacked this game (myself, mykonian) happen to be the two players who loudly disagreed with you. Disagreeing with Zilla...apparently scummy.
-------
I think people are ignoring a valid case against BB. I want to know why that is. I'm going to start with Zilla, who has consistently asserted my case is bad, but seems unwilling to even know what it's about. I think you need to step up and agree or disagree with it, and I want to know why.
And for posterity sake, here's what's bad about your case on Mykonian:
Asking you to vote him: I do this all the time as town. When someone throws suspicion on me but doesn't back it up with a vote, I will sometimes challenge them by telling them to go ahead and vote me. It forces them to commit to their suspicion. This is a null-tell completely.
First to mention a SK: It's a random vote. He could have said GIEFF was a jester trying to get himself lynched and that we should lynch him just to get him out of the way. Would you assume mykonian is a jester because he brought up jesters? For someone who has consistently lamented that we spent too much time stuck in a random phase mindset and how it's destroyed this game, I find it dubious that part of your case is based off a Random Vote. Such blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore, we don't know if there is a SK, so your vote based on the possibility of him being a SK is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason mentioning a SK changes the paradigm of the game is when people make it do so by lending credence to the notion. You're the one guilty of that, not him.
Defense of Panzer - your only possibly valid point. I don't think mykonian's defense of Panzer has been scummy. He has been consistent in explaining why he thinks Panzer is town. However, you then go on to say he's scummy for "trying to push attention on to others" and one of the others you mention is Panzer, which is laughable, considering how much he has defended Panzer and tried to get attention off of him.
Basically, I think your vote is entirely because you are still pissed off that people didn't just agree with you and give a summary of the game. You started with me, then you moved on to Mykonian. You've tried to supplement your case with hypocritical and weak justifications. You're doing the exact same thing you did with me. You're voting because you didn't like how he disagreed with you and after the fact you're using weak logic to try to make your vote seem more like it is. Why do you consistently do this? Or is your scumhunting entirely a process of attacking and voting for people who don't agree with your viewpoints?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I'll just say I laughed when I saw BB agreed with my case on him, but Zilla simulposted with a large disagreement .
I just gave that to you. Post 295.Zilla wrote:Wait a minute, Goat's stance on Panzer is a bit suspicious as well.
Goat, would you please give a current account of your stance on Panzer?
BB's agreement with my case on him and willingness to admit that he lied and was scummy is interesting, to say the least. I can't say I've ever had someone outright say "hey, you're right, I lied and I didn't care." Despite my confusion, I think the best play is to still lynch him. Willingly admitting to being scummy doesn't change the fact that he was scummy. Furthermore, I don't know why he bothered trying to create reasons for his play if he was just going to later say "yeah, I lied" anyway.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I'm sorry, but that's a load of shit. You're trying to argue some illogical "defense by association" type argument, based on the fact that I'm not attacking the people who are defending Panzer (essentially Mykonian), thus I'm also "defending Panzer????". Dourgrim is also not attacking Mykonian but thinks Panzer is scummy. I haven't seen you address this at all. Why not?Zilla wrote:If I am to believe your stance is the same as it was in post 240,FOS: Goatrevolt. You're critical of nobody defending panzer, soyou're defending panzer
Me thinking A has been scummy, doesn't mean I also think B who is defending A is scummy. I'm completely shocked that you are even attempting to argue that. I don't think Mykonian is scum, and I'm not attacking him. How does that mean I'm defending Panzer? Please elaborate further.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I've told you already. This is how I play mafia. When someone attacks me, I defend it and I do so thoroughly. This is why I've never been lynched as town before, because when someone brings up a reason to believe I'm scum, I point out why it's wrong. I also, as I've said, catch scum based on how they attack me. You are starting to move towards the scum spectrum based on the increasing illogical and absurd nature of your attacks. You have completely failed to address or even explain why me "aggressively defending" myself is scummy whatsoever. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.Zilla wrote:Yet another fire-and-brimstone reaction from the slightest suspicion at Goat, mixed with his usual complete misrepresentation, also mixed with his usual dodging of the important question at hand,.he still has not commented on how he currently views panzer
You're accusing me of misrepresenting you. In fact, I believe I've fairly accurately described you throughout the entirety of the game. When you were voting me earlier for a multitude of reasons, I cut through the bullshit and pinpointed that your entire reason for voting me was frustration, which you agreed with. With your vote on Mykonian, I did the exact same thing. I cut through the horrible reasons you were backing it up with and announced that it was simply because he also disagreed with you. You declined to comment, except to attack me for defending Mykonian and somehow try to imply that means I'm also defending Panzer, which is built on a house of atrocious logic.
You accuse me of dodging questions. I have not dodged a single question all game. However, you've done a bit of dodging and deflection. Yes, that's right, I'm calling you out. This is the point where you turn around and say how my playstyle is scummy because I'm turning it back on you. Deal with it. Here's what I mean: Throughout this game, you've continued to attack me for poor reasons. I've defended myself against those reasons. No problems so far. Then, you ignore my defense (in essence, proving me right), and instead attack me for being too hypersensitive, or for defending myself too aggressively, or some other bullshit you use to justify your unjustifiable suspicion. That's deflection. That's dodgy. That's downright scummy. You attack me, which prompts me to defend myself. Then you say I'm scummy for defending myself, completely ignoring the weak reason you used to attack me in the first place.
As for your assertion that I haven't answered your question. I have answered it. I answered it immediately when you asked it. I linked to a fairly recent post that provides my opinion on Panzer that has not changed since when you had last asked me.
That post is my current opinion on Panzer.
And then I see you took a completely different post and just attacked it. You asked for my current opinion on Panzer. I provided a link to a post that gave my current opinion on Panzer. Then you attack a completely different post. Zilla, the misrep is all you.
And this is weak, weak, weak. Your entire means of scum hunting is based on pairing players. Pairing players is dumb, meaningless, ineffective unless one of those players is dead. For example, you think I'm scummy based on ties to Mykonian and Panzer. I assume you mean if Mykonian and Panzer are scum it increases the chances that I am also scum. However, that is invalid, and useless suspicion until you know the alignments of Panzer and Mykonian, which you don't, unless you're scum.Zilla wrote:I'm relatively sure Brithday and Goat are opposite alignment, so it's very tough to choose between the two, especially given how horribly Birthday has been playing lately. However, Goat has ties to Mykonian and Panzer, who I am also critical of, while Birthday does not. I'm pretty sure I've hit the scum group, despite Birthday's constant attempts to convince me otherwise.
So, to boil it down. Your suspicion on me is based on this:
1. Ties to players who's alignments you cannot know unless you're scum.
2. I defend myself against your accusations.
3. You don't like my playstyle
Does that look like a solid case to anyone? Looks pretty weak to me.
------
This is the point where Zilla goes nuts because I again am defending against her accusations in such a "hypersensitive" way, and there is a likely chance she ignores what I actually say in favor of just attacking me for defending myself.
I'll address other questions in my next post, I just had to clear this up first.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I agree with the gist of this. There's really no concrete evidence to support that one of Birthday or Zilla has to be scum. BB makes a good point about Zilla dismissing the case on him prematurely, however I still think the reason she did so was based entirely on her continued angsty attitude towards me. To back this up, I'll point out that she dismissed the case on BB before even knowing what it was about, simply because I was the one who suggested it.Dourgrim wrote:OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.
I disagree with this. You're saying that since the BB case involves WIFOM, we should ignore it. I would agree if the case on BB was based on WIFOM. The case on him is based on solid evidence suggesting he has been scummy. Evidence he agrees with. The WIFOM is entirely based on how he has chosen to defend himself (via not defending himself).Dourgrim wrote:So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch? Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itselfbea valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone. The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.
I agree, though, that we need to hear from lurkers and get some concrete opinions from them before we go ahead with anything.
Right now, she's 50/50 to me. She was at the top of my town list a while back, but the manner in which she continues to assault me with bad logic, and then call me scummy when I defend myself (but yet she ignores my actual defenses, likely because she knows I'm right) has struck me as scummy. If she thinks I'm scummy because of A, and I respond explaining how A doesn't suggest I'm scum, then the natural town response is to either argue my logic regarding A, or admit that I am correct about A. A scummy response is to ignore A, brush it aside, and instead attack me for B, which is defending myself against A. That way, she doesn't have to support her arguments at all, and has a nice and easy "default accusation" to fall back on.Beyond_Birthday wrote:GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?
In essence, as of late, I don't get the impression she's actually trying to determine whether or not I'm scum. I get the impression she's trying to push the idea that I'm scum. She's ignoring my responses and my defenses, which is not something people do when trying to determine the alignment of others. She puts me in a lose-lose situation. Either I do not address her suspicion of me, in which case she can say I'm dodging her questions and thus scum. OR, I do address her suspicion of me, in which case she calls me "aggressively defensive" "hypersensitive" or "spouting fire and brimstone" and calls me scummy. I fail to see how that's pro-town whatsoever.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Eh, no, I don't really think she's scum. At least, I'm not interested in lynching her today. I thought Dejkha seemed pretty townie, and Zilla hasn't really been necessarily scummy, although I think she is dead wrong on nearly every topic. I don't want to let my personal aversion to her nitpicking at me affect my opinion.GIEFF wrote:Zilla and Goat, I'm trying to read what you are arguing about, but my eyes just keep glazing over. Put the egos aside for a second and ask yourselves if you REALLY find the other one scummy, or if you're just arguing minutiae in an effort to prove yourselves right (which is what your latest posts seem like to me). Honestly read back over the thread and see how your reasoning progresses.
She continues to attack me over not providing an answer to her question. However, in the my first post after she asked me a question (what is your current view on Panzer) I linked to a post (295) that gave my current opinion. That is providing an answer to her question. Maybe I didn't format my answer in the exact manner she wanted, but I answered the question, and it pisses me off to have her constantly assert I did not. She then proceeded to attack my post 240. However, I had linked to 295 when I answered her question, not 240, which made me even more frustrated.
I'm not going to answer her long posts anymore. If she has questions, I will answer them, but I'm not going back and forth. Basically, long story short is that she suspects I'm scum over things that are essentially a facet of my playstyle. No amount of discussion is going to change her mind on that.
For example, I always defend myself like this as town. Always. Springlullaby can attest to me defending myself in this exact same manner in our previous game. In fact, she FoS'd me for overreacting to her original suspicion on me. We had this exact same discussion. To be honest, I'm quite a bit more aggressive in my defense as town than scum. I leave you to check up on that at your own whim. I think Zilla is wrong in attributing "scum" ways to defend themselves and "town" ways to defend themselves. If the town way to defend yourself is to be softspoken, then scum are just going to defend themselves in a softspoken manner to appear like a townie. I believe that saying a player is too aggressive in their own defense is an entirely subjective argument.
She also thinks I'm detracting from scumhunting. I disagree with that. I think my pressure on Panzer/Macavity/BB beg to differ, but there's little I can do to change her mind. Likewise, I find her method of pairing players together to be a highly ineffective way to scumhunt prior to knowing the alignment of any of the players in question. I've never seen that actually work out.
If she thinks I'm scum because I don't play the same way as her, or don't do things the way she wants me to do them, then so be it. There's nothing I can do to change her mind. It's not even worth it for me to try.
Her only point against me that is unrelated to my playstyle is how I have handled the Panzer situation. To be honest, that is somewhat of a fair point. I do not have a solid read on Panzer. I think there are inconsistencies in his play. I also feel that he "reads" townie. Those are conflicting opinions. Do I go with the logic that says he's scummy, or do I go with my own gut that he feels townie? I made this known to her in Post 295, which is what I posted when she asked for a current opinion on Panzer.
----------
I agree that there are probably scum among the lurkers, who are having a field day sitting back and watching right now. I don't want to have us end the day with a lynch without getting them more into the forefront, first.
With that being said, I also disagree with Dour that long days = more helpful days. Not all discussion is helpful to the town. Longer days don't necessarily make it more likely that we catch scum, or make it more useful to catching scum later.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Dourgrim wrote:I do not believe this qualifies as a "fast wagon" at this point. 7 pages of Day One in a mini setup isn't fast, at least by my memory of typical game flow.
The first quote is from earlier in the day regarding the Panzer wagon. The 2nd quote is from your recent post. Can you explain the discrepancy here? In the first quote you are arguing that ending the day with a Panzer lynch at page 7 isn't a fast wagon, but now you argue that subgenius is scummy for suggesting that we end the day at 18 pages?Dourgrim wrote:Long days = good for Town, and the longer the better-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel). I don't feel confident enough either way to either vote for him or stick up for him.Zilla wrote:Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.
Right now, I'd say Panzer is about 3rd/4th on my suspicion list, behind BB and Macavity (qwints), and roughly equal to the lurkers.
One thing I will say, though, is that I think "lynching for information" is a terrible idea. Every lynch gives information. When people end up being town, it really doesn't mean much in terms of linking players. For example, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, do we really know more about GIEFF and Mykonian? Isn't it plausible GIEFF was attacking Panzer town on town? Isn't it possible Mykonian was defending Panzer town on town? If Panzer were to end up scum, then yes, we'd learn a lot about both Mykonian and GIEFF. However, that's because he was scum. We got lucky that our lynch for info hit scum.
We should be lynching to hit scum. Regardless of who we lynch today, we will have information for tomorrow. Panzer only gives us a wealth of information if he's scum. In that case, we should be lynching him because we suspect he's scum, not because we want information from his carcass.
I will also say that we need to lay this SK stuff to rest. Wait until tomorrow. If it looks like we have a SK, then have at it. Mykonian bringing up a SK as means for a random vote really isn't cause to get suspicious, and the only reason it has affected the game like it has is because of how others have reacted to it.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Dour: It was mostly aimed at you, although I recall others supporting the idea of lynching for information (or at least saying Panzer was a good lynch specifically because of the information angle), which is why I didn't directly call you out.
I can understand your point of view, using information to decide between two players you consider to be roughly equal in scumminess. I simply don't feel that information as itself should be used as a point of suspicion.
I agree with what Panzer said. The amount of connections he has is irrelevant to his role. Saying he has connections with players doesn't actually affect the likelihood of him being scum. However, I fully disagree with his statement about town v. scum information. I feel the information you get from a mislynch can be useful but the information you get from a successful scum lynch is game changing.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
It's all I can do to hold myself back from going off on this. GrrrrrZilla wrote:finally, after two pages of asking, Goat delivers.
That's not true. Number two is not based on subjective guesswork, but on my own personal feelings about Panzer's play being genuine. Along those lines, why do YOU think Panzer is town? I have a feeling your answer here is not so different than my number 2. Restating to it, OR linking me to a previous post where you describe this are both perfectly accepted answers .Zilla wrote:The thing worth noting is how parts 2, 4, and 5 seem to take the stance that he's town on completely subjective guesswork.
Number 4 and 5 explain how it's a bad idea if he is town, and how it's a meaningless gesture if he's scum. If he's town, it's bad. If he's scum, then we would be equally as good off if we lynch for scum. It's my way of saying how lynching for information is strictly a poor idea. Nowhere do I assume he's town. I'm only defending him so far as defending against bad ideas that happen to relate to him. If someone suggests we lynch BB because his name is annoying to type out, I would defend him against that accusation, despite still thinking BB is scum.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Zilla, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, what does that say about GIEFF? If we lynch Panzer and he is scum, what does that say about GIEFF?
Your entire argument is from this perspective that I have been calling Panzer scummy, but yet have also been defending him in certain circumstances and this is somehow wrong. The implication is that if I feel someone is scummy, I must therefore agree with every point raised against them, which is certainly not true. I think some of his actions are scummy. I feel like other actions of his are not scummy. I have agreed with the former. I have argued against the latter.
Let's examine:
I pressured Panzer on the initial questions that led to the suspicion of him in the first place.
In at least 2 or 3 places in the thread I pointed out inconsistencies in his logic and called him out for them.
GIEFF said the "Dejkha is a townie" thing was a slip. I defended Panzer, because I did not believe it was a slip.
I defended Mykonian because I do not believe him to be scum, independent of Panzer's alignment. How you construe this as a defense of Panzer I do not know.
I pointed out that lynching for information is a bad idea. I've never once advocated lynching for information in any mafia game I have ever played. In this case, it so happens that it relates to defending Panzer against an information lynch against him.
So what you have is me attacking Panzer on aspects of his play that make him more likely to be scum, and me defending Panzer on aspects of his play that I do not think make him likely to be scum. That is perfectly consistent.
What I tried to point out in my last post that you called irrelevant is that I don't have to agree with every point raised against someone I feel has been scummy. In fact, I can actually disagree with points raised against someone I feel is scummy. The example with BB's name was a bit extreme, but the principle is the same.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
The concept of lynching for information is such that even if the lynched player is town, it is acceptable because we have learned much from him. In other words, if you are advocating a lynch for information, Panzer's alignment is not relevant because you feel that we learn a lot from him and thus it's worthwhile regardless of his alignment.
My question is then: What do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town? I want specifics. Is lynching a town Panzer going to help us find scum in any way? Why, how, and who?
Note that: "there is a chance he is scum" is not a valid reply to the above, because lynching for information implies alignment is not a relevant consideration.
Personally, I feel that lynching for information is a BS justification people use to back up a lynch they are not confident in. "Well, he has been kind of scummy, but the good thing is, even if he's town we learn a lot here." Trying to justify how a lynch is fine even if it fails does not bestow confidence.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I think you're confusing "adamant about Panzer being town" with "not wanting to lynch him today because I think there are better targets." He's 3rd/4th on my scum list, hardly "town" but also not really someone I want to see dead yet.Zilla wrote:You're awfully adamant that Panzer is town, and you're trying to construct it as if lynching him is entirely a bad idea because he might be town, ascribing that apparently everybody wants to lynch him for information. The information case is basically a selling point that makes him more attractive than a Beyond Birthday vote, because if he's scum, it certainly implicates others to help find more scum. I don't know who we would follow up on for BB being scum.
While I have a couple of suspects I would follow up on if BB is scum, I think you're missing the point. If Panzer is scum, it implicates others as scum. If Beyond Birthday is scum it doesn't necessarily implicate others as scum. Fair enough. However, how does that affect the actual likelihood of them being scum, and how is that relevant to who we choose to lynch? Panzer as scum being a good tool to catch other scum doesn't actually affect whether or not Panzer is scum. BB as scum not really helping us catch other scum doesn't actually make it worse to lynch scum. That's why "what happens if he is scum" is irrelevant to whether or not he actually is scum and should have no bearing on deciding upon a lynch.-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
Zilla, what's the point of generating information? Answer: to catch scum. We generate information because we want to catch and lynch scum. So you saying that a Panzer-town lynch gives us more information than a scum-birthday lynch is irrelevant, because by lynching Birthday-scum we've completed the objective that the information from a town-Panzer lynch is trying to accomplish. And that objective is the eradication of scum.
Every lynch gives information. We should be lynching people who we think are scum, not people who's information might help us on the way towards catching scum. It's like adding an additional and irrelevant step in the middle.
And no, I don't know their alignments. I understand how Panzer's lynch can generate useful information. I don't think that information is in any way, shape, or form enough to base a lynch off of.
One question for you: Why do you think Birthday is town?-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA