Mini 1429 - Hunt in the Dungeon - Game Over

[don_johnson]

vote: suffer

thats redonkulous.

slaandar: how you been?

[don_johnson]

vote:russianov

[don_johnson]

shit just got real.

um. slandaar's point is valid. but i would also like russianov to come back and explain this out for himself.

[don_johnson]

russianov: pretty sure you didn't say "mislynching is bad".

[don_johnson]

neither, but nice either/or fallacy.

see. i know terminology too.

nothing wrong with bandwagoning the "wrong" person. it happens all the time. its how you find the "right" person.

bandwagon =/= mislynch.

unnecessary caution is scummy.

[don_johnson]

mozamis: you missed the point entirely. he did not use the word "mislynch". he used the word "bandwagon". different words. what he meant may have been how you interpret it, but it also may not. you are putting words in his mouth. i am giving the oppurtunity to defend himself. communication is everything. i could say:

"bandwagons are good."

would you interpret that as:

"mislynches are good." ?

[don_johnson]

yeah.i'm not following the twitch vote. please expand.

[don_johnson]

and russianov can now vote who he thinks is scummy. or vote anyone. that hasn't happened yet.

[don_johnson]

russianov: is english a second language for you?

It was that or a cop-out no lynch.

how so? pretty sure we are nowhere near a deadline. noone else is worthy of a vote in your eyes? especailly since your reason:

Vote: Twitch da woof

for the reasons the others have stated and

for twisting my words

.

is utterly terrible. exactly which words did twitch twist?

[don_johnson]

again mac: where did i "twist" words? tbh, the whole idea seems like a strawman defense of russianov. the issue isn't whether or not he said "bandwagons" or "mislynches". the issue was his overly cautious rvs statement.

i haven't looked until just now, but slandaar pointed out he is a noob as someone else did as well. apparently he does only have 30 posts on this site. he did say something about another mafia site, though. are other sites really that different in playstyle where someone experienced elsewhere acts noobish somewhere else? not sure if i can buy that. we have a newbie forum, so if he is playing here, he should be experienced enough to know that "bandwagons/mislynches" are an integral part of any town win. so why denigrate them in rvs?

it makes no sense to me from any perspective. then he accuses someone of twisting his words which they clearly did not do. he also blames his vote on trying to avoid a mislynch ten days from deadline? nah. thats not newb behavior. i hate to insult peoples intelligence, but i just don't believe anyone can be that stupid.

[don_johnson]

so you think russianov is just extremely dumb?

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote:bacde

how's that?

[don_johnson]

if its between twitch and russianov i'm going back to voting russian. his only defense is "i'm dumb." twitch's statements make sense, and i am not sure what mozamis is talking about above where he quotes twitch. twitch's post to russian made perfect sense. i don't see anything wrong with it. mozamis just jumped into my lynch pool for today.

[don_johnson]

^^ haha. i need to take another look at this. i will try to reread the last few pages this weekend.

[don_johnson]

twitch: how do you feel about deltabacon and mozamis?

mozamis: how do you feel about delta?

delta: how do you feel about mozamis?

[don_johnson]

vote: mozamis

twitch hasn't done anything i can see as scummy. that doesn't mean he can't be scum, but the reasons offered up for voting him are just terrible. he's absolutely right about russianov. i haven't seen slaandar as scum and am willing to give russian the benefit of the doubt on day 1. bacon seems generally town motivated giving thought out reasons though i disagree with them. ztife is a policy lynch. rev, i haven't paid enough attention there i guess, so if someone wants to produce a case i'll review it. but moz:

If the wrong person gets bandwagon'd.

So you find that a person who is wrongfully bandwagon yields a net loss for town automatically.

Interesting.

Yeah, this looked bad, as someone else has already said (Bacde?). I don't like the snide insinustion that Russia was wrong about bandwagoning, and yet Twitch didn't just come right out and say that. Scum like to cast vague aspersions and to stir up suspicions. Plus his ISO is very weak.

VOTE TWITCH

^^ is the most terrible vote of the day. i don't have time to delve into this, but moz goes from voting bacde, to agreeing with bacde and voting twitch, then going back to bacde as the twitch wagon died out. i don't know. let me know if i'm wrong, but moz looks oppurtunistic as fuck today.

[don_johnson]

moz: i am referring to your vote reasoning

So you find that a person who is wrongfully bandwagon yields a net loss for town automatically.

^^ is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of what russian said.

[quote="twitch]

If you felt this way and were town, you would not have waited on a wagon to vote me.[/quote]

^^ this was also a valid point.

And I haven't moved my vote because Russian hasn't really responded.

^^ this is also a good point. i moved my own vote off of russian based on my own reasons, but these are perfectly valid reasons to place and maintain a vote on a player.

the ztife wagon is stupid. he's a replacement, no? lots of replacements half ass a game when they first get in. there are a lot of factors that go into their interest level and its too early to say whether they are lurking. behavior like that becomes more significant as time goes on and so lynching them early is basically a policy lynch, which is certainly a way to get a lynch through on day 1, but ultimately policy wagons yield less information than one built on active players. that is of course just my opinion and i have no "evidence" to prove it. its just my general belief. day 1 is often a crapshoot no matter how hard we try. but i prefer to lynch scummy active players>scummy lurkers>nullread lurkers. and my belief and experience puts ztife in the null category and russian in the middle. it seems like we have a couple players in the scummy active category and so i prefer to work there.

p-edit: i will look back, i realize your unvote from twitch was early, but imo the wagon was dying/dead at the time if my memory serves. your reasoning for the original vote is piss poor and your interaction on the bacde wagon is poor as well. if you read my post here, you will see that imo you unvoted from what i consider the top category for lynch prospects on day 1. i.e. you unvoted bacde for "activity" making no implication that you think he is town.

[don_johnson]

screwed up tags. you get the idea. "^^ this was also a valid point" is me.

[don_johnson]

meh. still don't have an issue with early game lurking unless its a result of pressure.

mozamis: so you backtrack to meta? i remain unimpressed.

[don_johnson]

100%

[don_johnson]

its not really a road of discussion i'd want to continue. i'm not saying its not okay to pressure ztife. i'm just saying its styupid to direct the spotlight away from active scummy players to pressure a lurker on day one when the active scummy players have done nothing to alleviate suspicion. mozamis points to his backtrack post where he hands out town points, but doesn't expand on why he is handing out those town points. if you are going to reference something and call it "townie" or "scummy" it helps if you explain yourself. anyone can point and say "hey that post was scummy." or "hey that post was townie." and even that is relative to context, and what i'm saying is that in this context i.e. the current state of this game, mozamis has been making some shady moves. ztife's crime is "coasting". what is ignored is that he is hanging onto an rvs vote, but if you've been paying attention, there is a case(though someone needs to repost it for me) out there on Rev. so maintaining that vote is fine, no? ztife becomes scummy if rev is lynched and flips town, or if he continues this lackidaisical approach beyond day 1. until then, there are better suspects and cases out there. mozamis' attack on bacde was weak. his vote on twitch was entirely unsubstantiated. his jump to the lurker wagon almost predictable. mozamis is most likely scum.

[don_johnson]

I

To excuse ztife. Mozamis posting townreads is scummier than a player who hasn't been paying attention to the game at all?

thats not what i said at all. mozamis didn't post a townread. mozamis unvoted bacde for "acativity", then retroactively declared a bacde post as "town" without explaining why it was town. thats not "posting a town read." and there is no real evidence as to whether or not ztife is "paying attention." ztife is clinging to their rvs vote of you, and a case has developed on you, so the asking ztife to remove that vote is kind of silly if ztife agrees with the case against you.

Furthermore, you haven't been following me/Slandaar at all? The fact that Slandaar has a case NO ONE understands somehow allows Ztife to vote me...and it's ok?

firstly, i need slaan to repost this "case" to get an accurate pic of whats going on between you. i am simply saying from an "outside" pov, i don't see anything wrong with ztife supporting your wagon. i am not supporting your wagon atm, but that is because my attention has been focused elsewhere. i just haven't seen slaandar as "scummy", so whatevz. my case against moz has nothing to do with any of this other than that moz wagon hopping seems contrived.

You are making excuses for him; what incentive does he have to contribute further d2 if you allow him to slide with this gameplay d1?

lets talk about the present. what is ztife's points against him: 1) he's lurking 2) he's voting you. anything else? cause i don't have a problem with either of those things at the present time. how do you know he will even be alive day 2? trying to convince me of your logic with worrying about day 2 is "fear-mongering".

For the record, I completely agreed with his vote on Bacde; instead of calling it "weak", why don't you expand on why it's weak?

the attack itself was "wishy-washy", punctuated with a ridiculous unvoite for "activity f/b retroactive reasoning which is not explained. moz' reasoning for his second vote on bacde is a minced up quote collection that made no sense to me. the accusation of having caught bacde in a lie or some sort of nefarious posting calamity does not compute when moz later unvotes. why did moz unvote? it still hasn't been explained properly.

The fact that people like don/bacde are crawling out of the woodwork to try and excuse Ztife's stupid inactivity screams anti-town to me. It feels like an attempt to either save a weakscummate, but actually may be an attempt to keep around a useless turd for LYLO.

again, you engage in "fear mongering". a) why would anyone save a "weak" scummate? b) what makes you so sure that ztife would be a "useless turd"? if you want to policy lynch ztife, bring in some statistics of said policy. in my experience, day 1 policy lynches are not any more or less successful than lynching based on actions. only difference is that they leave less information behind to analyze. granted, the right players can scumhunt a policy wagon, but its not nearly as beneficial as a real wagon.

tldr;attacks mozamis for contributing "poorly" while being active

what?!? did you even read my posting. i did not attack moz for "poor contributions".

excuses ztife with several different stupid excuses

its actually one excuse. lurking =/= scummy on day 1. especially when the lurkers vote is supporting a viable wagon

hasn't followed me/slandaar at ALL (aka not reading)

i skim alot of stuff that isn't relevant to my train of thought. but rest assured. i'm paying attention to you now.

[don_johnson]

gotta go to work:

you are condeming ztife. where your vote is has no bearing on that fact.

i have repeatedly mentioned that ztifes vote is his rvs vote. if you are not pressuring ztife for having his vote on you, then what are you pressuring for? lurking? according to what you are saying, we shouldn't be talking about ztife at all. what is your issue with bacde again?

i count one. lurking =/= scummy on day 1.

if you keep saying noone can understand slaandars case, what benefit is there to go back and read it. i would rather he rephrase it. wouldn't you? especially if you are having trouble understanding it yourself. anyway. i'm outta time.

[don_johnson]

tl;dr
Don Johnson continues to excuse ztife's non-play, and furthermore, is attacking two players (moz/myself) who are pressuring/attacking him for it (for the record, I'm not sure of ztife's scummitude, but I am sure of his being worthless)

uh, what? i didn't want to continue this discussion, but you are aware that townies with power roles tend to stay out of the limelight and lend ambiguity to their characters so as to avoid being forced to claim on day 1, mis lynched on day 1, or nk'd on night 1? you are aware that i offered to listen to your reasoning for supporting a policy lynch provided you actually exhibited some, right? i did say, show me the stats on policy lynches? did you do that? no you didn't. noone has.

Continues to waffle on his stance on ztife's vote on me. Agrees that it's RVS. Then says it's valid, while admitting that it's not a serious vote. What?

nope. not. never. i said it was an rvs vote, but the fact that he kept it shows that he's happy with it, and coupled with the fact that slaandar has an actual case put together on you, that makes your wagon viable. does the word "viable" actually bother you?

Then ignores Bacde's proclamation of my townhood with no reason, even though that is one of his major points against Mozamis.

context, my friend. context. i haven't posted since then. how's this:

bacde: please explain yourself.

btw i clearly said Bacde got townpoints for meta.

yes. yes you did. 15 hours and 5 posts after your vote switch!!!!!!!

yeah gotta sheep rev here. The fact that he wants slandaar to repost his -at times hard to follow -case on Rev looks like he just wants to divert the town back to that discussion. Thats not gonna be productive.

actually, in my experience asking players to restate cases is a great way to actually understand them better. it also exposes the player more to the keyboard and gives scum more of a chance of messing up with inconsistencies, etc. but if you just want to ignore his case and say "its hard to understand" instead of asking him to explain it out in a manner which is more readily comprehensible. by all means. there is a case on rev. asking for a reboot of the case which "noone seems to understand" isn't "diverting town back to that discussion". its fleshing out that discussion and trying to better understand the issues at hand. if you don't want to talk about things, maybe we should just go back to random voting? [/sarcasm]

moz: post 353 is a nice delayed omgus vote to place on top of your pile of shitty votes today. well done.

ztife: how is mac oppurtunistic, and why not mozamis? or bacon?

Mac is Revs buddy yes

I did explain this a while ago

Currently thinking twitch is #3

please explain this. i'm fine with a tl;dr version. if not, can you at least give me post numbers for your case and points? i don't have all day to sift through this thread.

rememberance: i am not getting the twitch vote. are you caught up when you are voting? or posting as you read?

LOL! Limo is in this game?

is there anything else anyone wanted me to respond to?

[don_johnson]

i hve no idea what you are asking. and truth be told, i hate wall posts. unfortunately, it is the only way to communicate with certain players. i don't recall twitch giving me a town read.

[don_johnson]

i still don't understand what you are asking.

[don_johnson]

Let me be clear: You started to defend him after the town read he had on you. A false pattern?

i think its called "time". twitch apparently called me "town" in post 79. everything else happened after that. i don't really have any control over time.

Okay, but your reads and opinions are also wildly different than everyone else's this game. Or at least, to me they appear to be.

i don't think so. but whatevz. its day 1. theres not a whole lot of people that i wouldn't lynch today, its just a matter of choosing the best one, and when people say things like "lynch ztife for lurking", i say "theres probably a better candidate." if we are going to lynch ztife, thats fine. he's just not my top choice, and i don't see that he's done anything to warrant being

anyones

top choice. so i question the votes. you wanna lynch twitch? fine. let's lynch him. but i don't think he has done anything scummy and when i read statements like:

If the wrong person gets bandwagon'd.

So you find that a person who is wrongfully bandwagon yields a net loss for town automatically.

Interesting.

Yeah, this looked bad, as someone else has already said (Bacde?). I don't like the snide insinustion that Russia was wrong about bandwagoning, and yet Twitch didn't just come right out and say that. Scum like to cast vague aspersions and to stir up suspicions. Plus his ISO is very weak.

VOTE TWITCH

the statement made by twitch above is a perfectly logical post. if a wrongful bandwagon yielded a net loss for town all the time, town would never win games. twitch is 100% correct here, but mozamis is voting twitch and using this statement as reasoning. how do you not see this?

russian says: its bad if the wrong person gets bandwagoned.
twitch points out: its not always bad. thats a wierd thing to say.
moz says: omgz twitch(whose wagon is picking up steam) must be scum for "insinuating" that russianov was wrong.

NEWSFLASH!!!: russianov was wrong. twitch saw the same thing i did. an overly cautious statement in rvs. the wrong person gets bandwagoned ALL THE TIME! thats how the game is played. russian was implying that bandwagons on the "wrong" person are always bad. they are not. bandwagons create voting patterns and produce the only tangible evidence that exists in the game of mafia: voting records. have a look at mozamis' if you will.

[don_johnson]

your statement was a two part statement. so i broke it into two parts. i find it easier to address things pbp. i guess its just how i communicate.

[don_johnson]

your statement was composed of two ideas: 1) you seemed to attribute some significance to when i "defended" twitch. 2) you stated that my opinions were not in line with others this game. those are two clear and distinct points.

[don_johnson]

no problem. i appreciate civil discourse. when you get a chance, let me know what you think of mozamis' vote pattern and the ztife wagon in general.

[don_johnson]

people need to check out twitch's p271.
He calls bacde scum and doesnt vote for him.
Plus his logic looks flawed too.

kind of like what rev just did with slaandar?

unvote, vote: Revenus

moz: i think you and i may just be communicating poorly. we are seeing the same things but interpreting the context differently. i will look harder at twitch.

however, revenus seems obstinate about slaan's case on him(which slaan has reposted). rev is also very self obsessed and seems to like screaming the word "misrep". in my experience this is much more a scum tactic than a legitimate townie defense. a townie generally goes on to prove

how

they were misrepped. scum tend to like throwing out the word with nothing to back it up. we should be focusing in on a couple of candidates here. rev just moved himself to the top of my list with his recent behavior. other two: russian, bacde atm.

[don_johnson]

Why are you helping Ztife get away with not reading?

I feel like you are directing this at me--and I've said its bc I have a gut townread on Ztife

call me stupid

call me crazy

but I still think he's town

I'm not defending his being useless, just his player slot

Well considering that:
1. I was obviously talking to Russian and
2. If you're not defending Ztife but the slot

I can only derive that you can't follow a logical conversation from 1 and that you know Ztife's player slot is town from 2.

From the above, you're mafia. Congrats.

i'm not seeing a logic flaw. its not knock it out of the park shit, but if bacde is defending a "slot" that does imply some inside knowledge. if you want something to compare it to, picture someone saying "hey i'm going to pick a player at random and defend them because i have a 'gut' feeling about their 'slot'". <<< that sounds kind of insane. how do you get a gut read on a slot without considering what they've posted? you can say "i have a gut read on russianov as town because his posts seem too stupid to be scum." but you can't say "i have a gut read on russianov as town because of his slot." am i missing something?

[don_johnson]

Twitch p271

His 2nd point (basically accusing Bacde of already knowing Ztife's alignment) is bogus. A reasonable interpretation is just that Bacde THOUGHT that Ztife's slot was town. Nowhere does Bacde say he "knows" Ztife's slot is town.
False logic and misrepping from Twitch.
Lets lynch this scumbag.

i don't see that as misrep. i see that as deductive reasoning as evidenced by my previous post. honestly, i hate defending twitch this much but i just haven't seen a good point made against him. the only bad thing i can say is that he isn't here defending himself. so i'll cease and desist for a bit here.

[don_johnson]

you say it alot.

i never misrepped you. you argued with me and took a position on ztife which was opposite mine.


slaan didn't misrep you. saying mac's votes count against you is not a misrep at all. is it logical? no. but its not misrep.

remembrance is trying to talk to you like a human being and you are reacting like a crazy person. i didn't see any misrep there.

i agree with slaandar's deduction that you are scum. your continued insistence for people to provide opinions on you is scummy. you are so self absorbed because you can't actually scumhunt. you are paying attention to noone but yourself. you argued with me regarding ztife. then you say that you never wanted him lynched, as if that absolves you from your actions. am i missing something? i'm pretty sure it was you i argued with when i stated i was

against

the ztife lynch. if i argued with you and i was

against

the ztife lynch, the only logical explanation is that you were

for

the ztife lynch. and yet you cry "MISREP!"

i'm pretty much done talking to you. you have earned my vote at this time. if you want it removed, convince me where i should move it to. otherwise, we are done.

[don_johnson]

w.o.w. add Mac to my lynch pool. talk about pot calling the kettle black.

moz: sure sure. i'm really down with lynching Mac or Rev atm.

[don_johnson]

You argued with me regarding ztife. then you say that you never wanted him lynched, as if that absolves you from your actions. am i missing something? i'm pretty sure it was you i argued with when i stated i was

against

the ztife lynch. if i argued with you and i was

against

the ztife lynch, the only logical explanation is that you were

for

the ztife lynch. and yet you cry "MISREP!"

A. I was never for the ztife lynch
B. I called ztife out for being useless
C. You then followup by posting that I want to policy lynch ztife, and now continue to say that I want Ztife lynched.
D. I argued with you over you townreading Ztife, even though up to that point his posts had consisted of him asking what was going on in the game, and whining that he liked his RVS vote. That's hardly what you're presenting it as.

a. then why did you argue with me?
b. ok.
c. no. i followed up by saying "if" you want to policy lynch ztife then you would need to show statistics. you were arguing as though you were "for" the ztife lynch.
d. huh? townread? more like: hey guys there are better candidates than the guy people want to lynch for lurking on day 1. get your facts straight.

Saying that another player's voting different wagons from me means I'm scum? It's NOT misrepping? Come on bro.

no. its not misrepping. maybe you need a vocabulary lesson?

[don_johnson]

rev: how do you feel about YOLO?

[don_johnson]

Deltabacon
Limo
Mac
russianov
YOLO
ztife

^^ need to chime in. i am fighting the urge to continue defending twitch. i don't see anything wrong with hisposting. imo: bacde lynch> twitch lynch. but whatevz. i've been wrong before.

unvote, vote:twitch

[don_johnson]

"hi, my name is revenus and i'm 100% predictable."

[don_johnson]

slaan: i think rev isn't getting lynched because everyone moved to the twitch wagon. yourself included. i'm more than happy to move back.

mac: why do you think?

Mod: can we get a vote count up in here?

[don_johnson]

I might hammer today

I might not

Let's see what happens when this possibility is hanging over everyone's heads

weak sauce.

unvote, vote:Revenus

kbw: also weak.

bacon: scum if rev flips town.

[don_johnson]

The single most glaring thing I have realised over the last few pages is that I find Remembrance unbearably annoying, which kind of clouds my read on him. I... think he could be town but his posts just get at me enough to slide him into the null pile whenever I think about it.

utterly soft accusation here.

I'm convinced that one of Slandaar and Rev are scum. Utterly convinced. They've both made well, shite arguments all game, and D1 has pretty much revolved around them, there's been Slandaar v Rev interspersed with little bouts of 'The World v Ztife' (Still game for that if anyone feels like sheeping me) and 'Bacde v Twitch' (Less convinced on a twitch lynch now). The thing is, they both have shining moments. Slandaar completely destroyed my argument against him about half a game ago, and Rev has just made a great post explaining himself, with what looks like an involuntary AtE, and so I'm utterly lost when it comes to trying to decide between the two.

i don't buy the "slaan v. rev" bit. rev's arguments have been terrible. what "great post" of rev's is bacon referring to here? and why vote rev if said "great post" contained an "involuntary AtE"? i have to look back and see the evolution of bacons thoughts on these two, cause i don't recall him commenting on their interactions much before, but i could be wrong. i don't know. this just feels contrived.

Keybladewielder looks like a mad bastard. Still townreading him from YOLO's slot, but wow, you need to chill out and stop denying us your reads because of what one person said.

why is YOLO's slot a "townread"? again, it seems contrived. i need to go back and take a closer look here. i have been a bit tunneled.

though the fact rev hasn't come in with a raging post indicates to me that he may very well be scum here. so we'll have to wait and see. revscum points me to Mac/bacde. lurkers definitely need to be dealt with tomorrow, though, guys. day 1 is one thing. day 2 we need to get shit straight. good luck.

[don_johnson]

Remembrance you said Twitches death was the best info lynch - what have you learned from it?

good question.

i see you've been busy.

slaandar- please explain my "meta" to me? thats kind of a shit argument at this stage.

i'm looking into bacon at this point. remembrance is not a huge town read at this point. not a fan of the bullying.

mac: if you are town, then who is scum? the remembrance vote looks more reactionary. can you expand?

[don_johnson]

things twitch said, made sense.

not sure where i pitted you against bacon?

how are we differentiating the kills again? i don't recall a vig/sk claim.

post 714 offers no context to events. kind of a way of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

you seem to be creating a diversion here.

[don_johnson]

again, i find it interesting how you are differentiating the kills. i am not going to have time for dedicated responses until later this week. your reasoning is a bit retroactive and you seem to forget that mozamis changed his tune once he and i conversed. twitch and i had nothing but understanding for each other. revenus absolved me with his final post. you seem to content to post static info from a dynamic game when it suits your case.

i think its funny that you say i "buddied" twitch. buddying to me is when someone cozies up for no good reason. i was consistently understanding twitch's posts and i was fully explaining that each time it happened. but whatevz. you are pointing to town behavior and calling it scummy here. you are ignoring half the field before they have even posted and not paying attention to the players who have actually done "scummy" things.

[don_johnson]

Don't play stupid Don it is very obvious that twitch was not a mafia kill.

no idea how thats "obvious". but whatevz. plenty of people were trying to kill twitch in the day phase.

[don_johnson]

i am still unclear on the logic. i found it pretty obvious that twitch was town. maybe even power.

remembrance/slaan: dig up some of mozamis' quotes on me. please and thank you. your argument is going to have to change once you do. but change to what, i wonder?

Also, he hammered Rev without waiting for a claim which is ultimate anti-town.

i beg to differ. power roles don't roll over. only scum and vanilla townies.

What makes dons cum?

i think ztife asked my scum reads, so i'm not solid on anything at this point as i am only reading and responding and will not have time to delve until later in the week, but i did not like bacon's lurking near the end of the day and the russianov slot seemed to squeak out of the spotlight. is super his replacement? in any case i can look at it closer later. remembrance and slaan just look like bullying experienced scum, but it would be pretty ballsy for them to team up at this point. the thought of a sk certainly crosses my mind however, both of them seem to just want to push a lynch through asap today. i don't know. i will need to get back to it when i have the time.

[don_johnson]

oh yeah. forgot about that. don't see how that makes me scum. i will take a minute to help you here:

your argument: "scumdj killed mozamis because mozamis targeted scumdj"

reality:

I haven't finished catching up yet, but I'm liking Don's response to twitch.Just seems honest.

and

lol the above post from rev is exactly what i found GOOD about Don's post. He's honest about the fact that he wants to lynch someone, and although he doen't particularly find Ztife scummy, he'll go along with it if no better candidates.
This may not be a great attitude, but its a pretty ballsy thing for scum to come out with.

moz and i worked well together, moz even later defended

my

lynch. so yeah. please restate your argument so that it makes sense.

[don_johnson]

wait. let me try it.

remembrance is scum. lolz!

is everyone convinced?[/sarcasm]

[don_johnson]

why would a vig target twitch? an "obvious soft vanilla claim"? an obvious townie? you make little sense. there is no vig. are you an sk? setting up your fakeclaim?

p-edit: what is ad hom?

[don_johnson]

never mind. googled it. how is disproving your argument with logic ad hom?

[don_johnson]

see post 763

[don_johnson]

if you give me a case, i can go pbp for you. kinda hard to do that when you won't explain yourself. exactly where did i try to discredit you?

the post i quoted was a direct response to the allegation that scumdj was killing off players who suspected him.

you claim twitch as a "vig" kill. that means scumdj could not have killed twitch.

so scumdj voted to lynch rev(whose arguments were piss poor)(oh, and scumdj hammered without a claim) and then nk'd moz? << that was your allegation as i understood it.

but you see, by showing that moz showed less and less inclination to lynch scumdj as day 1 progressed, it shows that the allegation is grounded in falsehood. if of the two dead players, only one of them had wanted to lynch dj, the accusation of "dj is scum because he's been getting rid of players who suspected him" is without a foundation. moz did not "suspect" dj from where i'm standing.

so yeah. the argument is bad and i have discredited it. i haven't engaged in a bit of ad hom. so i guess thats false accusation number 2 from remembrance.

[don_johnson]

wait. let me try it.

remembrance is scum. lolz!

is everyone convinced?[/sarcasm]

^ Ad hom.

please note the sarcasm tags. this was an honest to goodness attempt to show your case for what it is, which is just finger pointing.

Mozami

initially

agreed with Revenus on his case on you, Moz only changed his opinion on it when I showed up. You're chronologically changing things to suit your argument.

actually, its you who is chronologically adjusting things. the bolded proves it. but whatevz. its pretty obvious what you are after.

Dear Don Johnson

Recently I made a case against you, if you could PBP like you say you can do for any case Rem makes against you I would greatly appreciate your thoughts especially regarding why you think scum would ever nk twitch I would love to get inside your mind and understand why that would ever happen as this just seems insane to me my tiny little mind cannot comprehend it!

Hope to hear from you soon

Slandaar

didn't see a "case", but i can look for it. as for twitch, i hadn't given it much thought, but like i said, he seemed pretty town to me and i had even thought about him being a pr at one point. i don't spend much time dwelling on things in night phase. i don't like the speculation of a vig. if there is a vig, the pro town thing to do is claim the kill. the sk thing to do is to suggest that the kill was a vig kill but not claim. increases chances of an sk win. claiming vig has very little anti-town effects imo, and it helps the rest of us see things a bit more clearly while lending the claim more creedence than say... a vig claiming in lylo or similar high tension situation.

[don_johnson]

is this your case?

DJ is good enough to know scum don't just nk mislynch fodder.

explained. i don't agree with "twitch as mislynch fodder".

Twitch was clearly a mislynch waiting to happen.
Mafia therefore would never kill Twitch.

your opinion. given the soft vanilla claim i can concede that "mafia" would probably not kill twitch. still does not "guarantee" a vig. when i claimed that twitch might be a mafia kill i had forgotten about the soft claim.

If DJ were town there is no way he would not know this; look at his posts hes an intelligent guy.

Therefore DJ is scum.

There is no other argument that needs to be made here.

i guess its a matter of opinion then. i am a pretty intelligent guy, and i don't think that anything i've said contradicts that.

[don_johnson]

again, lack of context.

from what i can see, bacde and remembrance were trying to lynch a townie. dj was willing to compromise. it also lends to the fact that you voted rev and twitch all day yesterday. noone else. both of your suspects have flipped town.

[don_johnson]

Mac: care to explain why your vote is parked?

[don_johnson]

my twitch vote was a compromise. it was day 1. mac, you are trying to make static, what was a dynamic opinion. i was willing to lynch twitch if need be. at times he seemed content to let me defend him, but overall, in the large scope, i generally understood what he was saying and thought the arguments against him were poor.

super: again. CONTEXT!

i have not seen so many cherry pickers in one place in a very long time.

again, lack of context.

Context:

DJ: VOTE TWITCH
Next Day
DJ: TWITCH WAS OBVTOWN!!!!!

If he was so obvtown there is no way you vote him; you do not compromise on people you think are obvtown (as town)

no. you are ignoring the context of the vote. nowhere did i say that twitch was "obvtown all day long". and even if i did, it was day 1 and lynches often have to come through compromise. and like i have explained, twitch accepted my defense readily. it would be egotistical of me to think that twitch could simply "not be scum". not all mafia act scummy. going into night phase, twitch was not one of my suspects. so when someone comes out and says "hey look! twitch got vigged!" it makes me a bit suspicious.

OK I voted only town yesterday. So, what? you voted a lot of town yesterday; twitch, rev, moz probably more; bacde very very likely.

bacde? really? what i get from this is that you agree that you voted two conftown and noone else. so if you are town, maybe your scumdar ain't what you think it is.

Were they trying to lynch town, or lynch someone they think is scum; do you really only see people trying to lynch townies when the person flips town? no, I don't think this is a town mentality.

my point exactly. it works both ways. so you just nullified your own point. well done. "compromising" on a lynch is town mentality. it is clearly different than oppurtunistic wagon hopping. speaking of which... who the hell votes for an sk when there is apparently a vig soft claim on the table from another player? scum. thats who.

vote:super

[don_johnson]

submit too soon.

mod: please prod the inactives

i have to get going to work and have a difficult next few days. it looks like the case against me is a laid out as its gonna get. so i will switch places with one of the inactives here and be

v/la until wednesday

. checking in, but can't devote time to my thoughts. please don't lynch til then. i would like time to look into a few things that i have not had a chance to reread.

[don_johnson]

good game town! looks like the power roles made all the right moves. i was thinking that the vig kill sunk us. or at least me. but Mac wrapped the rest of it up nicely. oh well. i don't think we really made many mistakes, just a well played town game. nice job.