vollkan - 5: orangepenguin, Riceballtail, mrfixij, bionicchop2, Xtoxm
mrfixij - 1: G-Force
bionicchop2 - 1: PyroDwarf
orangepenguin - 1: vollkan
G-Force - 1: curiouskarmadog
Scheherazade - 1: Rhinox
Not voting: Scheherazade
7 votes for a lynch.
Pyro has slightly improved his posting, but he is still high on my suspect list. His vote on me for pursuing my beliefs on Vollkan and 'drawing out' the meta discussion has a slight chainsaw feel to it, but that obviously stems from my suspicion of vollkan.Scheherazade wrote: @bionicchop2:
I didn't mean to be confusing. I was curious if you had any sort of reaction to PyroDwarf's post, which I quoted. You've stated strong suspicion of three players in this game. One claimed and was complimented by you on strong posting. One seems to have halted the forward momentum on his case. What do you think of the last one?
Ok fair enough. i suspected it was something like that, but the way you worded your question seemed to almost be planting an idea in the rest of the group that if vol is town, we should lynch bio. And maybe we would anyways after discussion about bio, i just wanted to make sure you weren't placing vol in the defacto lynch position and setting up bio for tomorrow.Scheherazade wrote:That's a reasonable enough vote, though the major point was to probe vollkan's precise level of suspicion of bionicchop2. Frankly, I never expected vollkan to accept the lynch merely because I asked him questions. I asked the questions to figure out exactly why he wouldn't accept the lynch, which I assumed included doubts about bionicchop2's scumminess.Rhinox wrote:Sche, it seems what you're doing here is trying to get vol to accept his default lynch role on grounds that his mislynch will lead to us being able to lynch bio tomorrow. Your statement stems from the assumption that one of either bio or vol are scum. Not only is that statement not necessarily true, you could be shaping the way for 2 mislynches, which would put us either in or dangerously close to LyLo.
this thinking bothers me enough tounvote, vote: sche
I thought Vol's other post had a comment for me to respond to, but it didn't. I just saw my name and thought there was a question in there for me.bionicchop2 wrote:Will respond to Schez and other Vollkan post later.
I have no problem with your opinion the meta case is unreliable. My question to you would be - what is reliable? Any scum 'tell' is just an indicator of something scum do more often than town. It is still a percentage play. Your 'unwillingness to gamble' is a little unsettling. It gives the impression that nothing short of a cop investigation will convince you who is scum if you are not going to gamble on something which a player has done more often as scum than as town.G-Force wrote: I still think that the meta case against BG is unreliable. It's true that there is evidence that BG has more often blown up and requested replacement as scum than as town, but I am definitely unwilling to gamble that that is what happened this game, especially considering the gray areas that volkan has brought up. Supporters of the meta case treat it as definitive, which I think is a grossly incorrect.
That was quite a loaded post there. I can't tell if you think vollkan is scum or town by this post. It appears that you think he is town, but are lynching him anyway. You seem very sure he will turn up town and that scum are already voting for him. I see 1 person I know is town (me) 2 people I am confident are town (RBT / Xtoxm) One who can really only be SK if he isn't town (OP) and 1 I have no clue about (mrfixij).PyroDwarf wrote:time for me tounvote
I agree with some of the others when they say we are reaching diminishing returns. Vol says he considers claiming as "any last words".
Vote: vollkanI am assuming that scum has alreasdy slipped their vote on him, so that would mean bio, mrfixij or OP. Or i could be wrong, wich is equally as likley.
I agree with Xtoxm's post 520.
I don't know if vollkan flipping town will be a guaranteed Bio lynch, but that will probably be where a lot of people start looking. Bio has already said, he is just voting for his top suspect, what else should we do on day one, wait for some to slip up and claim scum?
I am not saying that you need to make a new case in every single post. What I am saying, though, is that "I voted for you on page X" does not inherently justify the continuance of that vote on page (X+Y). In the case of this game, I have made detailed responses to the case against me and have posted fresh content of my own, with some of my wagonners only meeting this with what is basically just a shrug of the shoulders. And it's not about making yourself "look town". It's about making the best lynch decision possible which, almost by definition, cannot occur unless you consider all relevant matters - of which my defences rank very highly in terms of importance.Bio wrote:Vollkan wrote: It's completely illegitimate that you think you can rely on the fact that you voted me pages back. Your vote must be justified at each point in time.
I completely disagree with this. If I still believe in my decision, I don't have to make up some new reason at each point in time just to appease people. Expecting that would lead to people forcing reasons into the game just to fit their opinion. I am not going to nit pick every point you make just to try and make myself look town.
This is pure bullshit. We argued over the meta case. You haven't argued with me on my subsequent defences or material. There's no issue of arguing in circles here. Again, you are just posting a justification for a resigned default lynch of me.Bio wrote: Not all of us are as convinced as you are by your own arguments. I just choose not to argue in circles with you.
Okay, so we move to the next point:Bio wrote:At this point, I would agree. Things do change, but I don't think any direct action of you discussing something with me is going to convince me.Voll wrote:
The sense I am getting here is that nothing I can say or do could possibly avert the suspicion that you have of me.
Hmm, I would have hoped you would understand the logic.Bio wrote:I would like to understand this jump in logic. Just because you feel you have defended something to your satisfaction does not mean the original points do not exist and others no longer believe in them.vollkan wrote: That's very important because it shows that the suspicions you have simply aren't based on anything.
I've rebutted this already. It's not a question of "our own opinions". I missed a set of votes on BG which made some of what I had said wrong but, in a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, you blew it out of proportion because it had little to do with the point of my argument.Bio wrote: I have also shown that I disliked your defenses and felt you changed arguments and twisted words. We both have our own opinion on that though.
I know I am not scum (useless for the rest of you), but I freely admit my suspicions could be completely off. I'm open to discussion and debate on the points I've raised and I am open to having my mind changed.Bio wrote: I also see a PbPa by you which has 3 claimed town roles listed near the top and I see myself there. Since I know my affiliation and I am comfortable with the claimed roles at this time (masons first and vig 2nd because of the outside chance he could be SK) it means you are either a townie off your game or you are scum on your game.
This merits a (+2). You're playing the trick here of drawing an equivalence between the fact that we cannot ever know things for sure with a kind of "anything goes" attitude. See, Bio, the impression I am getting of you is that you think that having a suspicion at one point in time justifies you clinging to that rock unless you are absolutely convinced otehrwise. That's both scummy and obscenely anti-town - it avoids having to engage with any material post-vote. GF, in stark contrast, is playing properly: that is, with a willingness to change his view based on a reasonable doubt.Bio wrote: I have no problem with your opinion the meta case is unreliable. My question to you would be - what is reliable? Any scum 'tell' is just an indicator of something scum do more often than town. It is still a percentage play. Your 'unwillingness to gamble' is a little unsettling. It gives the impression that nothing short of a cop investigation will convince you who is scum if you are not going to gamble on something which a player has done more often as scum than as town.
Also, I don't think anybody has said anything was definitive. Yes I am assertive in my belief, but I understand this is a game of mafia and nothing is concrete. I simply feel this is my best chance at catching scum on day 1. Nothing out there has convinced me somebody else is a more viable lynch.
And we have 1 player with 5 votes on him who also has no overwhelming case against himBionic wrote: Now people can say they think the case against him is whatever - and are welcome to their opinion. I believe in what I have said though. The only thing that will move my vote is seeing something I feel is more suspicious that moves somebody up to the top of my list. We have 5 players with 1 vote on them, so obviously there is no overwhelming case against any of them.
I don't think that's true at all. Bio, RBT and X stand out as the obstinates, but I think that others (eg. yourself, Shez and GF) have shown a continued willigness to adjust your thinking.Rhinox wrote: I do agree the vol/bg discussion has run its course. all players seem now locked into their beliefs regardless of whats being said.
Okay, to begin with you say that you haven't given a single reason to explain why you are voting me. Then again, the way this game is going, that doesn't seem to be a problem.PyroDwarf wrote:time for me tounvote
I agree with some of the others when they say we are reaching diminishing returns. Vol says he considers claiming as "any last words".
Vote: vollkanI am assuming that scum has alreasdy slipped their vote on him, so that would mean bio, mrfixij or OP. Or i could be wrong, wich is equally as likley.
I agree with Xtoxm's post 520.
I don't know if vollkan flipping town will be a guaranteed Bio lynch, but that will probably be where a lot of people start looking. Bio has already said, he is just voting for his top suspect, what else should we do on day one, wait for some to slip up and claim scum?
You're completely misrepresenting my posiiton. I've been over this so many times now. I never said "I don't need to claim". I see claiming as an "any last words" sort of thing. That avoids things like the premature claims we had here. I'd also love for you to explain what is actually scummy about the fact I didn't claim.Pyro wrote: I didn't like vol's repeated "i dont need to claim" attitude.
Hold on.Bio wrote: Since I think you are scum, reasons like claiming not to see something do not convince me that there was not an ulterior motive for your actions and argument.
*sigh* I was going to see whether my last post changed anything for you, but it seems not. I've done my best to dissuade the wagon against me, but I cannot refute emotional recalcitrance:Bio wrote: You are at L-1. It is time for you to claim
braadcrumb #2 in post #455bionicchop2 wrote:If he would have claimed doctor I would have been more suspect since that is a more common scum claim.
bionicchop2 wrote:Don't, when I flip out and say I have to go to the doctor, I get a free town pass.
This much we can agree on.bionicchop2 wrote:OP - you know what to do if a doctor gets lynched today.
Nice try, but this is pure bullshitBio wrote: For the town - remember that scum is almost always the initial claim and the counter claim is almost always town. There is no incentive for scum to counter claim and out themselves trying to get a doctor lynched. Scum have guns and can kill doctors at night since this site frowns on self-protecting doctors.
Two docs is extremely unlikely. We already have two claimed masons, and a claimed vig. Unless the masons/vig are fakeclaiming, or the scum is ridiculously powerful, it's probably reasonable to assume that there aren't two docs.Ixfij wrote: Either one of you two are lying, or we have two doctors, which makes for an interesting closed game.
Read my role name. It is specific and leaves no room for multiples.mrfixij wrote:
I think we may have 2 doctors. For some reason i'm inclined to believe vollkan's claim. It certainly explains why BG was playing so terribly (doctor advocates bad play, or so I've read) and why Vollkan has been so slippery.