Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake therePanzerjager wrote:@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.
@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
to show it was a random vote. Nothing changed in post 55, only my reaction on the fact that the assumption that the SK would know something about the setup was wrong I think I should always appoligize for bad play. It simply is not helping, because people may think you are scummy. Even when it was for a random vote, then you have the right to point out that the reason is wrong.ting =) wrote:@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I have heard this before. Pretty much every game that I start from the beginning. I don't like this part of the game. But lets see what I can do for you.GIEFF wrote:It's only been 36 hours, which is why I think active lurking is scummier than just not posting. If you're posting but not providing any content, then it looks like you're posting just to avoid suspicion, as opposed to posting to help the town.
About pantzers early game: it is undoubtely protown. But on the other hand, it barely can hurt scum. I don't know how panzer starts his games normally.
Dourgrim is quite eager to defend my (wrong) random vote logic.
then a lot of talk about GIEFF's "early mafia" too much talk about a little thing, I think.
I don't care if someone doesn't random vote: GIEFF is busy enough. I must say, I like post 54.
Dourgrim and GIEFF are talking a lot, and I can't see the point.
Ting's post 73 is a reasonable voice in the mess before that. I like it. But I have the feeling that is just Ting's normal state. I like it anyway.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Because I have no idea why you would try to explain my wrong logic for a random vote.Dourgrim wrote:
This is an overstatement, apparently meant to deflect Panzer's attention back toward me, especially when you follow it with:mykonian wrote:Dourgrim is quite eager to defend my (wrong) random vote logic.
@mykonian: To clarify once again: if all posts in thread were to be taken at face value, your logic had some merit; not a LOT of merit, but some. Since we've had a very long discussion about jokes vs. serious posts, and since you backpedaled after my defense of your logic was shot down unmercifully by GIEFF, why continue to try to draw attention to the conversation?mykonian wrote:Dourgrim and GIEFF are talking a lot, and I can't see the point.
To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts, as in:
How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.GIEFF wrote:I read this as "As my reasons for voting GIEFF were shown to be faulty and baseless, I've decided to unvote rather than continue to try to defend myself."
since when is panzer under attack? I think panzer did a good try to get this game active, in stead what you and GIEFF are doing. You are talking about how he changed your name (oh no, how scummy!), and you are making big posts about that stuff. It doesn't get you anywhere.However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?
Combined with the deflection above, I'm going toFoS: mykonianandvote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?
Brilliant.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I think I'm the one that is tired. I'm sorry, but I'm going to try to explain tomorrow. I don't think it will get any better tonight.Dourgrim wrote:
I honestly don't know what this paragraph means. No sarcasm here, I've just read it four times and can't decipher it. Maybe I'm just tired, but can you please explain it again?mykonian wrote:How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
You are right. You need to look at what the people assume to see if there is something going wrong.Goatrevolt wrote:
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.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
My reaction on this part you didn't understand yesterday. While panzer was really starting the game with that accusation of him, you manage to make a scumtell out of it, and one good enough to vote him.Dourgrim wrote:Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. Itcouldpoint to scum covering for each other.
Combined with the deflection above, I'm going toFoS: mykonianandvote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?
after this, GIEFF votes for a contradiction...
FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim
If someone makes an accusation in the random voting stage, that makes sense, then I can't see how you would exactly pick that person for looking for "contradictions" and "distancing". Abstract terms. contradictions: what do you expect from panzers first post? weak reason.
distancing: nice, early game. But is this the only explanation for that situation? that we are both scum? Two townies make the same posts just as easily. So plz don't look at relations till you know some peoples allignments, then it becomes usefull.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I was talking about your vote on panzer. First, based on overall play, I don't have the feeling that panzer deserves those votes. Then I looked at how those votes got there. First two votes because panzer is too aggressive, dourgrims vote for a null-tell. And you because you have found a "contradiction". Like that is a scumtell. You say that two statements panzer said cannot both be true, and so he must be a liar. It is "how-do-I-find-scum-in-three-days" and it doesn't work.GIEFF wrote:mykonian, I agree it makes little sense to try to label attacks and defenses as deflection this early in the game. Yes, two players "could be" scum, and therefore their interactions "could be" deflection or bussing, but without any other evidence, that's an arbitrary claim that could be made about any two people int eh game.
What I don't understand, mykonian, is your FoS of me. It's because I voted for a contradiction? Are you referring to my vote of Panzer or my vote of Dourgrim? And what contradiction are you talking about?-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.GIEFF wrote:Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?
and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.
assumptions: GIEFF knows something about the setup.
GIEFF wants to lynch scum.
logic: The fact that GIEFF knows something about the setup makes him antitown. Town doesn't know a thing.
GIEFF can't be scum, as he wants to lynch scum.
antitown + not scum + standard = SK.
But the assumption that a SK knows something about the setup is clearly wrong. The logic part is good. Scum can use logic, but as long as the assumptions are not right, the conclusion doesn't need to be right. And because you don't know a thing in this game, assumptions can be based on guesses.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I have no idea. People seem way too serious about it. Don't think you would do it today, but two or three days should be a lot off.
I have seen more town lynches for "contradictions" and "lies". Scum wouldn't want to lie this way, town wouldn't. It is imperfect play in any case, but you make a scumtell out of it, and I think that is wrong.GIEFF wrote:
Do you disagree that your defense of Panzer in post 143 was irrational? Instead of answering my questions and continuing the discussion, you decided to appeal to a broader audience.mykonian wrote:doesn't anybody here have the feeling that this is one big overreaction? This is going way too fast. I don't like fast wagons, esspecially not when they are early. Are you really in favor of a panzerlynch page 7? didn't think so...
mykonian, how likely did you think it was that Panzer would be lynched today before your latest post? And how likely do you think it is now?
Spring: I do that "helpful towny act" because it is one part of my town play that doesn't hurt if I'm scum. If I believe a certain wagon to be too weak, then I say that: to make that statement worth something, I give reasons. Now try to make something antitown out of that...-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I think I have showed what I think about that lying, and that I have said that a towny had no reason to do that. However, scum would have had no reason to lie there either. At least, when I'm scum, I try not to lie a single time, because it is so easy to catch you then. So I wouldn't understand why any player would lie, and that's why I get to my conclusion that this must be imperfect play.
Panzers accusation on spring seems to come from the fact that he thinks that springs targets are a bit arbitrary. I didn't have that feeling when spring came with that post against dejkha. So I don't yet know what to think about this. If spring is scum, panzer is likely too. That way he could easily have spotted the way she attacked.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
we are talking around each other. What I'm also trying to say, and that should be the answer on post 144: why would panzer be so eager to lie in the half-random-voting-stage? Because I'm so obvious protown, that he must get rid of me? It makes no sense.
and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Yes that was the answer I would expect: it was the assumption that spring was scum that would make them town. As the whole post is build to accuse spring, the assumption is that she is scum. Could be a slip though, but it is not conclusive.GIEFF wrote:
He already responded to it. Post 161mykonian wrote:we are talking around each other. What I'm also trying to say, and that should be the answer on post 144: why would panzer be so eager to lie in the half-random-voting-stage? Because I'm so obvious protown, that he must get rid of me? It makes no sense.
and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).
Panzer didn't lie in the half-random-voting stage. He lied later, but about his reasoning in the half-random-voting stage.
So why would panzer lie if it was just a random vote? Scum could easily walk away from it by saying it was only random with a joke. I know it is wifom, but why would Panzer lie? A lie as scum can only be a scumtell if it had use to scum, at least that is what I believe. This lie couldn't even confuse us. That's why I can't believe it is a scumtell.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
have it your way. You keep having the idea that scum has to fake reasons from there first post. From experience I know that this is not true. But it seems I'm not going to convince you.
I can't imagine that on page 8, everybody would already lynch for a lie for a vote in the random voting stage. That makes that I suspect this wagon, because I think it is to big for the reasons given. I know it is day one, but you can at least try to get a good wagon.
and GIEFF: good call, I'm again being to defensive. Tomorrow I'm quite busy, but in the weekend I should be able to post something about people I suspect. 8 pages reread can't be that hard.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
tomorrow I'm going to try to get some non-random thing going. So yes, it is still random.ting =) wrote:At the moment, myko's still holding his random vote on GIEFF. Do you mean to keep it myko, or is it still just a random vote?
you put your observation better then I would have been able to post it. I was simply annoyed that they seemed to talk about nothing.Dourgrim and GIEFF.
These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF'slack of a random votetill well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
It seems I always think spring scum: one time I was right, one time I wasn't. The way she attacked dejkha, while not being very good is not something I would trust my vote on.
mouthy and being aggressive are two different things: you are being quite defensive. And stop apoligizing for posting, it is a good thing, and the more information in this game, the more I'll like it.Dourgrim wrote:
Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.Goatrevolt wrote:
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.
I don't like GIEFF's post 54, esspecially the part where he attacks dourgrims random vote. Reasons given were: GIEFF hadn't voted yet, there were 2 votes on GIEFF and OMGUS. I can shoot holes in such a case...
and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum. Strawman (he makes the vote bigger then it is, to make it a serious point against dourgrim)GIEFF wrote:
That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke? It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.Dourgrim wrote:... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.
Vote: Dourgrim
Then we get the big posts that boil down to the problem of the post above: GIEFF tries to make a case out of it. Dourgrim defends...
GIEFF is quite eager to point out who the lurkers are. Null-tell, but something to remember (it is not really a null-tell, but I like scum to be active)
and you know what I think about how GIEFF tried to make a case out of "lies" and "contradictions". I see a pattern...
really? itDourgrim wrote:Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. Itcouldpoint to scum covering for each other.couldalso be two townies, and math tells us this is more likely . nulltell.
you just don't like how I point out that your cases don't exist. There was no big case, and theory tells us that. Then you don't like the theory...GIEFF post 117 wrote:Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.
well, we can always random lynch, can't we?
hmm, we are not going to vote for aggressiveness, right?Panzerjager wrote:Currently, I'm getting very bad vibes from Springlullaby and she seems to be far more eager then I am.
Beyond, post 150. He finally says something... He quotes massive posts, with the comment that he agrees. Large posts: yes, content: no. And after he has said little to nothing (really, I can't find much in that post) he votes Panzer. Brilliant.
post 153: more of the same. I don't like it.
Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.GIEFF wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.Beyond_Birthday wrote:You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?
Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.
Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.
Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.
Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.
vote Beyond_birthday.(no, I don't like your play)
FoS GIEFF-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
the fact that I would like much, much more out of him. He promises big posts, then I would like them to be stuffed with information, not with quotes of GIEFF's big posts. And I agreed on one point with him, but that doesn't mean I like his bandwagon vote (and it was that, because he only stated a few times he agreed, and then voted).subgenius wrote:I'm confused, are you saying that Beyond's notes are scummy or are you casting a vote out of annoyance? You agree with his assessment of Gieff's case and then vote for him. What am I missing?
I never said it was a strong case. I don't think there is an obvious strong case available at the moment.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
GIEFF wrote:
OK, am I just misunderstanding what a random vote is? Dourgrim gave reasons for his vote, claimed they were serious, and made it very clear he thought I was scummy. Does that really qualify as a random vote to you? Do you still not understand why I find lying about the reasons for a vote is a giant scumtell? You can disagree with my opinion, I just want you to understand what my opinion is and why I hold it.mykonian wrote:and this is the conclusion. Suddenly GIEFF has made a serious vote out of a random vote, and because the reasoning is weak, Dourgrim must be scum.
since when is this a serious vote? don't make it one.Dourgrim wrote:Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.
unvote: Panzerjager
vote: GIEFFSurrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)Goatrevolt wrote:
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?
But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
that's why I think it is overreacting.GIEFF wrote:
But that's the whole point. A vote is a joke only if themykonian wrote:because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)
But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.casterof the vote thinks it is a joke. But based on Dourgrim's reaction, it's clear he did not think it was a joke, and thought the reasoning sound.It may not have been a vote in search of a lynch, but to call it a joke-vote or a random-vote ignores Dourgrim subsequent posts, which show that he took it seriously.
and determining what kind of vote it is can't be done with what the caster says: if he is scum, he will make it stronger/weaker when he needs it. You should determine it by the reasons given. If, on some point, someone gets too close to a lynch, while joke/random/weak votes are part of the votes on him, those persons should be questioned.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
you don't like his attitude: brilliant.
and his logic makes perfect sense. After you know who is scum when a game is over, you read the game very different. You suddenly see all the scumtells. If someone now told you that lets, say, I was scum, then you would nitpick every post, and sure: you are going to find things that could point to me as scum. However, you would give me a special treatment. You would tunnel on me.
While we only want you to have a open mind when you start the game.
So please read the game.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
then vote me! what are you waiting for?
Maybe it is because you just should reread. If there were any scumtells there, you would miss them. If we told you where to look, you would only find those we told you to look for. Now when you reread with an open mind, you can find scumtells with everyone, and maybe that will help town for a change...
If you think you are also convinced by early posts, just as much as the new ones, then there is still no reason you shouldn't reread.
So if my arguments are invalid: show me. You are making a general statement: back it up. I only show you theory, and I think I'm right there.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
that hurts...Beyond_Birthday wrote:mykonian- His general logic is baseless and stupid.
I voted you because, while your posts were long, they said very little, and so for the notes: they tell me nothing. But I'm happy that goatrevolt got you to post this. This helps.However, he makes a few good points. For one, I do like his assessment of Dour and GIEFF. Hm.. Actually, his early point was baseless and stupid, but in general, I feel that his defense of Panzer is pretty sensible. He seems level headed in these later posts. However, he votes for me because I make a lot of notes, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. That’s okay though. I still acknowledge and don’t care too much.
active lurker doesn't mean that you can't be right. Earlier I had brought up why I would vote you, why I suspect GIEFF (I don't know if I did that in the same post, but in general, I think he blows up cases unnatural far)Still...:
I don’t follow how you agree with me and then vote me. How is annoying>pretending to participate? (I say this because I don’t know a better way to phrase what GIEFF’s later posts are.)Mykonian wrote:
Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.GIEFF wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.Beyond_Birthday wrote:You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?
Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.
Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.
Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.
Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.
vote Beyond_birthday.(no, I don't like your play)
FoS GIEFF-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I thought we stopped random voting? The game already started! While you are so annoyed that I want you to simply reread, all you can think of is to vote me because I reacted annoyed! I don't know what goading means, but the word general in front of it already tells you you have to back this up.Zilla wrote:For now,Vote: Mykonian
For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.
I'll believe you at the non-commital behaviour, it seems an easy accusation to make in the start of the game. I've got nothing to go on, and that doesn't help me to get ideas...
You aren't defending me, are you?Panzerjager wrote:WOW WAIT A SECOND.
Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have toUnvote. Vote:Zilla
I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.
a weak vote, already seen from the reasons, and the timing of the vote. Policy FoS from my side. Did I mention I think you blow up your cases far too much?GIEFF wrote:My case is not baseless, my case is not based on minutiae, my case is not petty, and my case is not blown up unnaturally far.
Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote.Not a random vote, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.
Lying about the reasons behind a vote is not minor, no matter what you think about the additional points I raised.
OK, lets get this over with now.GIEFF wrote:Post 244
I don't think I got an answer to this. And by ironic, I think I really meant hypocritical. Either revise your own logic, or admit mine is sound; you can't have it both ways.GIEFF wrote:It's ironic that you yourself are using VERY SIMILAR reasons to call me scummy that I used to call Panzer and Dourgrim scummy. You suspect me because you think that my reasons aren't valid. If they really aren't valid, then from your point of view, I could either be a confused townie who doesn't realize is logic is, or a scum trying to push a faulty wagon (i.e. "faking" logic). So what should differentiate scum-me from town-me in your eyes is whether or not I genuinely believe my logic, which is exactly what I've used to conclude that Panzer and Dourgrim are scummy. Right?
Why I think you are scummy:
you have a case against someone: good
you have a case based on a weak vote against someone: almost good
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person scummy: even less good.
you have a case based on a weak vote and think that person likely scum because he lied: bad.
I can't see a towny push a case like yours, and not dropping it on the moment people point out to him that early play, and lies in early play, are not hard scumtells. You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
if you are scum, yes. If you are not, then you have heard that I don't completely agree with the way you play. I think that if those cases were pushed to a lynch, it wouldn't be much better then a random lynch, and I don't want that, while you seem to be too eager to push them.GIEFF wrote:mykonian wrote:You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate amislynch.
You sure about that, champ?-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push. And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest. This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.
I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out. You simply refuse to see them.
Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:unvote vote GIEFFSurrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I think I know where you are getting at. You think I vote GIEFF to protect panzer, to divert attention. I'm sorry, I can't help you there. I believe GIEFF is scummy, I don't vote him for his vote on panzer, I vote him for blowing up a weak case.Dourgrim wrote:4) A lot of mykonian's behavior seems to be stemming from irritation, not actual discussion at this point. While I'll be the first to admit how irritating GIEFF can be in this game (;)), I think it's important we look a bit deeper than an OMGUS vote, which is what it looks like mykonian's doing.
I quote this whole post, so you can see. It is not about the mislynch (good catch, thank you) it is about the hiding behind LAL. After that, GIEFF suddenly needs no reasons for a lynch anymore, as it is the obvious scumtell... But it is not appropriate here.militant wrote:
I disagree on both he bolded points:mykonian wrote:I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push.And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest.This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.
I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out. You simply refuse to see them.
Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:unvote vote GIEFF
Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.
Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:
GIEFF wrote:mykonian wrote:You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate amislynch.
You sure about that, champ?
ThanksGIEFF wrote:LAL means lynch all liars.
STRAWMAN!!! I said, and I say again, that you should never, with such a case, want to push for a lynch, esspecially if it has been pointed out that there are holes in it. Then it is time to wait, to see if you can get more. Not the time to scream: he lied, he must be lynched!GIEFF wrote:OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points. Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.
That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE. That is hypocrisy.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
zilla, please reread where this is coming from. I have tried to explain why LAL can't be used here, as lieing is not a scumtell here: scum had nothing to gain from it.
It's like you are doing it on purpose... Please finish rereading before commenting on the current game.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum. I thought first your case weak, what you called defending, but you keep hiding behind that case. Keep pushing for a lie that is not a scumtell.GIEFF wrote:
Which of the four points do you disagree with? Let's actually try to discuss this. If you are town, and you really think that Panzer is town, you should want to convince me of the bogus-i-tude of my case. I am pushing aggressively for a Panzer lynch because I think he is scum. Your "never ever" does not apply.mykonian wrote:STRAWMAN!!! I said, and I say again, that you should never, with such a case, want to push for a lynch, esspecially if it has been pointed out that there are holes in it. Then it is time to wait, to see if you can get more. Not the time to scream: he lied, he must be lynched!
you can't be convinced, as you believe that lie is an absolute scumtell.GIEFF wrote:Just because mykonian thinks the Panzer wagon fits that description does not make it so.
Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.
I mainly attacked the way he tries to push his case that is notBeyond_Birthday wrote:@mykonian: Your attackon the method he pursues players is flawed. Bad logic=/=scummy. Bad logic that is contrary to your normal way of playing (via, useful meta or proof to the contrary of your vocalized or utilized thoughts)=scummy.thatstrong.
it was a rhetorical question. I accuse Panzer of defending me. Zilla´s vote is quite ridiculous, her case also, but the fact that she adds as reason: "but mainly because he asked me to" as a reason, it is clear that this doesn'd deserve an aggresive defense. It can't be a serious vote. Panzer is far too eager to prove that he was wrong before.subgenius wrote:Here's something I would like explained from myko: (post 306)
What exactly are you trying to communicate to Panzer here? There's already some discussion about a possible Panzer/Myko pairing. What did you mean by this? When I first read it, it immediately occurred to me that you could be trying to remind a partner not to become too involved in mutual defense.myko wrote:Panzerjager wrote:
WOW WAIT A SECOND.
Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to Unvote. Vote:Zilla
I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.
You aren't defending me, are you?
I'm not a very aggressive player when I know too little.Zilla wrote:I find it ironic Mykonian accuses Panzer of defending him, considering he's also covered for Panzer.
and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.GIEFF wrote:I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."
I'm not talking about wiki generalities; I've explained why lying about your reasoning for a vote is scummy way too many times to repeat it. I am not saying "lynch all liars," I am saying "lynch those who lie about their reasons for voting."Beyond_Birthday wrote:Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed.
And what is your case on me and BB? What is so obviously scummy about us? that we don't agree with your "great case"?Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Then I must admit that I don't know what way you want to go with this question.GIEFF wrote:You don't appear interested in reaching consensus with me, mykonian. You just repeat your old points which I have already answered. Which of the four points do you disagree with?
GIEFF, the main point of the case is that Panzer lied. This is mainly from the start, the confusion if he was serious about me or not. He is not completely clear in this.
But I can't see benefit for scum in this. That's why I think it can never be a scumtell. You argue that scum needs lies to vote for somebody, I say that that is only needed when votes are required to be very well reasoned and strong (not early day 1).
And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.
Scum doesn't need to lie for a random vote. Scum can also point out valid scumtells. The only lie is their conclusion: they catch a towny.
And for the cases on me and BB: they seem mostly induced by the fact that we don't agree with you, with BB the extra point that he also voted and unvoted panzer.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Sorry, this is my bad English. What I tried to say was that scum doesn't need to lie early in the game, because reasons won't be looked at that much, and only in the later game, when targets disappear, they could have to resort to lying.Zilla wrote:
This isn't true in the slightest; any townie can draw incorrect conclusions and set up a mislynch, and lying for scum just puts them on the line and in the open later for searching later. I also disagree with the stance that "there are no good targets anymore," I think this game is full of them. Just about every player could have a rather solid case built against them.mykonian wrote:and I think it has been pointed out that there was nothing to gain for scum here. Scum needs to lie for a vote on the moment there are no good targets anymore, and a serious vote is required.
We agree here.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
But day one? Right from the start? if panzer came up scum, that would be a little too much of a coincedence, wouldn't it?subgenius wrote:
This makes sense if you're talking about distancing, but not really bussing. He's going over the top if he's simply distancing, but if he's bussing, he's doing a killer job of it.mykonian wrote:
And no, I think scum GIEFF would have went completely over the top if this was bussing. Panzer would have been risked for close to nothing by scum GIEFF, while also his unnatural actions would put him at risk. I don't think scum would gamble that much.
and attacking GIEFF (but I guess you call this chainsaw defence, you just can't see that I don't like GIEFF's case), and asking you to reread, when all you were doing was accusing everyone without knowing.Zilla wrote:if you read Myk in isolation, he's played the whole game defending Panzer.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
We are not getting there by SCREAMING.GIEFF wrote:@mykonain.
ONCE AGAIN, Panzer's lies were not just early in the game, but throughout the thread. And ONCE AGAIN, scum does have reason to lie. And ONCE AGAIN, which of the four points do you disagree with? Your failure to answer or even pay attention to what I am saying is distracting for both me and for everybody else
GIEFF, I don't understand what those four points are, you are talking about, and that is why I said that I didn't know what way you wanted to go with that question.
On the lying: as far as I recall, it is the contradiction between first a serious vote, and later making it a half joke vote, am I right?
Then we know what we are both talking about.
Then the following, because we clearly disagree there: you say lieing is a universal scumtell, because scum needs to lie for their reasons.
You get to this, because you say that no matter what, the conclusion must be wrong: the one they vote is town.
So you prove that the lie is in the conclusion, but it is the logic that leads to the conclusion that you are testing for lying.
and scum doesn't need to lie about that logic. They can point out scummy acts done by town, because town is not perfect, and still end up with the wrong conclusion. So, esspecially when nobody knows a thing, and the standard of the votes is not high, it is useless to lie with the logic, not only with the conclusion. That's why it is bad play, no matter what allignment the liar in this case has.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
OK GIEFF, I understand what you are saying. For town, reasons are part of hunting for scum, for scum they are an excuse to make their votes.
Now we are not talking about lies anymore, we are talking about motivations behind a vote. Can you prove me that Panzer his motivations for his vote on me are not for hunting scum, but are an excuse for a vote on me? (I think I know where this will go, but when it is 23.40, I'm not going to try)Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
While you were attacking me, your vote didn't follow. I reacted to your aggressiveness by saying something like, "vote me, if you are so sure", so we don't get the attacks from you until the bandwagon is filled enough that there is no risk for you anymore.Zilla wrote:I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.
It was for a random vote, nothing serious. Just wait what happens night 1 before we get serious talk about a SK. I never intended to get big talks about it, but other people are making something out of my words that they were not.My other points are still unrefuted, and I don't see how you could refute them either. You were the first to mention an SK, and I've already said that's pretty cut-and-dry a possible scum move since we don't know for sure if there actually is one. As mafia, it creates a scapegoat. As the SK, it's trying to create a WIFOM where the SK shouldn't be the first to mention it, so someone else ought to be the SK.
no reason for you to take a random vote reason serious.We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.
when you listen to it as were it serious.But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.
I put in a logical error in my random vote, I expect people to vote me. Someone goes even further and attacks me for the SK business: I didn't expect that. But anyway, nothing unnatural there.On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.
First time I read this. Sorry. But don't expect from me that I put myself in the spotlight. Attention on me is not usefull and antitown. So asking for it would be foolish.In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.
My vote stands, and I'm serious about it.[/quote]-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I don't know anymore. I can see GIEFF's points, I can see why I also could not believe GIEFF.Zilla wrote:The defense of Panzer beyond his vote for you is still unnatural. I'll ask you the same thing I asked goat: what is your current view of panzer, all things considered?
must explain why people don't find me as scum, it is part of my early game town play too. I don't think early cases good soon. Till I see that the game is getting inactive, I most times don't like the cases on people, as I can see flaws in them, and as I can see people going to easily with it.By which I mean you never actually attack anybody, but play devil's advocate, and worse, you're actually playing "angel's advocate" by being defensive of others rather than offensive. It's a common day 1 scum tactic, it builds trust.
I know this is not the completely right play, but I can't see myself playing like you, or panzer. Acting very aggressively right from the start, just to see what stays, who believes them. Hope someone makes a mistake under the pressure you bring.
--------------
Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.[/quote]-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
sorry, all under the line is zilla's
rest from me:
this is what I reacted on. You were so sure, but left the vote away from me. If I'm campaigning for it, you should show that.Zilla wrote:You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.
This is where I said we should lynch the SK,mykonian wrote:But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.if we know him!
People argued that an SK shouldn't be lynched. I think theory proves that it gives town more mislynches, and I told that. But the fact that we don't know if there is a SK, we shouldn't lynch based on that. Lets wait for a few nights before we bring this subject up again...
explain the method of a joke please...Zilla wrote:
Au contraire, I'm well aware it was made in jest; however, the method is suspect.
when you listen to it as were it serious.But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
3) lynching someone gives ties to that person, if we don't let people hop on for no reason, if there is some kind of criticism. It simply is not a usable argument.Panzerjager wrote:I agree with Goat, I don't think lynching the person with the most ties is a good thing for 2 reasons.
1) That person is clearly me and nobody wants to be lynched.
2) How many ties I have does not make me more or less scummy by itself. It has 0 impact on what role I have.
Although, I do disagree, You do get info if I'm town. Not just if I'm scum. I actually think you get more info if I'm town.
Please don't use it, it only increases mislynches. I don't believe that two people can be even likely to be scum. Saying that means you have not thought over everything, as there are always differences. Resorting to this kinds of arguments means you are not looking closely enough at the facts (arguments against people are always different, so the chance that people are just as scummy is neglectible), and still prefering one lynch over the other. I think you all can see a scum-tactic.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
almost. I thought you shouldn't believe in it. But now I can see how you could... Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.GIEFF wrote:
He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?mykonian wrote:I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
Ting, you are completely right.ting =) wrote:
I took myko's meaning to be - "Me and others have been pointing out to you time and time now the weak points in your case, but you're just ignoring them and pushing on anyway." Not that you don't believe to see your case - but that you're refusing to look at any point that disagrees with it. There's a fairly subtle difference. The last sentence in myko's post which you declined to include in your quote would suggest so.gieff wrote:
Yes, it was. Just in other words., as I said.ting wrote:That was not what Mykonian said.
He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e.mykonian wrote:I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote
Myko is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, in which case I've read his post wrong and take all this back.myko wrote:I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.You simply refuse to see them.
On this moment, I feel BB is mostly a lurker. Not really lynch worthy, maybe just someone to lynch in case of a very short deadline (that we don't have yet, do we?).Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.