Open 97 - Lovers Mafia (Over in 3 days!) before 703

[SensFan]

You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.

Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?

More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?

I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer once

you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you.

.

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

[Lord Gurgi]

You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.

Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?

More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?

I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer once

you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you.

.

Answer the question.

[JDodge]

You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.

Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?

More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?

I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer once

you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you.

.

Answer the question.

I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

[SensFan]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

[Lord Gurgi]

I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.

No. You have made a statement that is a sad attempt to weasel out of self-incrimination.

[JDodge]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

[JDodge]

I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.

No. You have made a statement that is a sad attempt to weasel out of self-incrimination.

No. I've answered the question.

Isn't this fun? It's like a long and more wordy version of the classic "NO YOU NO YOU NO YOU" exchange.

[SensFan]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

[JDodge]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

[Lord Gurgi]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

[SensFan]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

[JDodge]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.

[Lord Gurgi]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.

What would your reasons to hammer be?

[JDodge]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

[JDodge]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.

What would your reasons to hammer be?

I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.

[SensFan]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

[JDodge]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

[Lord Gurgi]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.

What would your reasons to hammer be?

I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.

Excusing yourself from a lynch, etc.

[JDodge]

JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."

If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.

What would your reasons to hammer be?

I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.

Excusing yourself from a lynch, etc.

YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG

Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.

[Lord Gurgi]

YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG

Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.

This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.

[SensFan]

Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

[JDodge]

YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG

Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.

This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.

My, your little psyche is full of cognitive biases, isn't it?

[Lord Gurgi]

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

I'm seeing a pattern of a question not being answered.

[JDodge]

Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.

Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...

You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.

YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for

3 people

to call for the hammer.

This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion because

they asked for it

. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.

I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.

Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination you

are

town, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.

I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?

If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.

However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.

Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?

You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.

I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.

I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?

Never said that. Said that you shouldn't hold back on acting on your opinion for fear of being shunned by the majority.

[Lord Gurgi]

YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG

Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.

This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.

My, your little psyche is full of cognitive biases, isn't it?

Ad hominem, I can't tell if that's a step up or a step down from the norm.