Mini 722: Neapolitan Mafia (Over)

[Zachrulez]

No you didn't.

You simply twisted my concerns and spun a counterattack claiming suspicion on me for having concerns.

All I stated was why I was bothered by your post.

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

That's your choice I guess, but I have noted it.

Yes I did. You claimed I was suggesting things I wasn't, therefore the logic of your suspicion was essentially made up.

As for the bold, umm yes, craplogic is often a scumtell, so yes I am concerned about breaking down your logic. That's in fact the best thing to do really.

FYI: defending yourself by "breaking down my logic" is still being defensive, especially with all the capitalized and bolded words, sorry.

Yes, I was defensive. But here's the deal.

When you were defensive, it was based in crappy logic, that people were about to lynch you, when they weren't.

However, I am defensive because you made a nonsense accusation to try and throw suspicion on me, based on false claims. This is perfectly acceptable.

My logic is craplogic because you said so?

Got it.

No, your logic is craplogic for the reasons I already explained, the very reasons that you ignored and didn't respond to.

What, do you have no argument? I don't see any other reason you keep ignoring my commentary on your nonsense logic. Kinda sounds like you're trying to avoid an argument you know you'll lose by making snarky comments. This reeks of scum.

I think you've officially moved to the top of my most likely scum list. Consider yourself

FOS'ed

.

Oh really? I guess this post doesn't exist now?

Post 356

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

Haven't read any farther than this yet, but what? Are you kidding?

We were asked by Don to give our top 3. I specifically said, if I HAD to choose, it'd be these three, but I don't think anyone is lynch worthy yet.

It's kinda suspicious that you didn't even read my post (or the one it was answering) and tried to take it out of context and FOS me for it.

The point is not about attacking you specifically for giving your top 3.

It's the way you say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" that bothers me.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying who your top 3 suspects are and why you suspect them... but to go and say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" ... yeah, I really don't like hearing that statement.

I find it off. I find it suspicious. Not suspicious enough to change my vote, but I don't see what's wrong with me voicing why I didn't like the way you made your top 3.

I just don't see why you keep saying "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" rather then trying to actually come up with decent reasons why the mentioned people are in your top 3.

The only real reason you gave for suspecting anyone is that you just have a gut instinct about them. I just find the lack of substantive reasons coupled with "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" to be... strange.

Maybe you want to try to find those reasons, instead of trying to say that I'm unfairly coming after you. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be suspicious of you over this. I find it especially amusing the way you barked back at me after it seemed totally fair to you for me to be suspected for some odd/even semantics, and told me to calm down because I only had 3 votes on me. You have a mere FOS on you and just look at the way you reacted to it.

By the way... I did read your post... I think that much was made obvious by the fact that I

quoted

your post. I also read the post you were answering. If there's one thing in mafia that completely drives me up the wall... it's people who claim that other people don't read their posts. I can't understand why people are allowed to get away with claiming that. It's like just because you say I didn't read your post it has to be true.

Maybe you want a better defense then that... like explaining to me how I might have misinterpreted what you said.

[magnus_orion]

While I was reading....

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

Stealing MY lines, are you now?

He focuses on the arguement, not its purpose, in my mind.

[Isacc]

Magnus, I had made another response to the post you quoted, in which I broke down his logic?

[magnus_orion]

I know, I was just upset he stole what I said.

[Isacc]

No, I was referring to your post number 375.

[magnus_orion]

...thats not me

[Beyond_Birthday]

Is that your scum group, Issac?

Anyway: Assuming Don has some form of info confirming Rogue...
and B_B, I'm just going to say this: I think you have the other odd role.

Isacc I still think is town
Tyhess I'm guessing is town...

LF seems town
Psycho seems to be the even cop making him town

I'm town, but I can't expect anyone to know that except me.

Assuming I'm right about BB: Zach and he are town...

Game Setup Theory
Don & Rogue: can be cleared together
LF & Psycho: both look town
Zach and BB: I'm guessing are the even/odd pair #2
Magnus: is town
Isacc: looks town
Tyhess: looks town
Thats 9 players,
leaving:
nik
nuke
percy
All lurkers.

However I also think we can

learn

the most from rogue's lynch.
Rogue is town: I go with the above theory
Rogue is scum --> Don is scum and someone else is also scum.

But my above theory is why I believe the don should explain and the odd should claim, preferably in that order.

At first, I thought this was a good post. Then I realized that I cannot view this objectively. Someone random's point of view please, Zach, Isaac, or Don or (Someone else who has thought the same way I have) does this look like buddying up to you? It somehow seems to please me."

Further: Role speculation, even about people's restrictions is inherently scummy at this point, particularly in trying to fish to see if anyone's power works tonight versus tomorrow night. Assuming Zach is town (even) then scum would think:

Tonight: RB Lind, kill X
Tomorrow night: RB Psycho, kill Zach.

By trying to fish for odd, you allow scum to further this plan by making x=odd role. This situation is terrible for town (and again, to wifom the doctors, assuming we have any, scum could then roleblock x and kill Lind. That is a very losing situation Magnus.)

FoS

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

Bad Zachary! You have misrepresented Isacc's post entirely. Isacc never said that a weak lynch is preferred to a strong lynch. Isacc is basing his lynch list off of the current situation, in which a strong lynch is lacking. By Isacc's calculation, it is better to lynch the person from whom we would gain the most information is far preferred to a no lynch from which we gain nothing.

minor, meaningless, fos, only because I am sure you did not intend this. (I am posting this knowing full well Isacc defended himself on this matter.)

[Isacc]

...thats not me

My bad.

Anyways, then Zach, I already dismantled your argument, and you IGNORED it. And you are still ignoring it. I rest my case.

[Isacc]

@B_B:

At first, I thought this was a good post. Then I realized that I cannot view this objectively. Someone random's point of view please, Zach, Isaac, or Don or (Someone else who has thought the same way I have) does this look like buddying up to you? It somehow seems to please me.

I'm not sure how objective I can be, seeing as he finds me town, but I wasn't entirely bothered by the post. Maybe that's because I agree with some of the logic he used.

By trying to fish for odd, you allow scum to further this plan by making x=odd role. This situation is terrible for town (and again, to wifom the doctors, assuming we have any, scum could then roleblock x and kill Lind. That is a very losing situation Magnus.) FoS

I see what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure I agree. I don't think outing that a person is odd is going to give away anything dangerous, as long as we don't out what the role is.

I also still think that an odd claim (or lack thereof) will allow us to learn more about whether or not Zach is scum.

[Beyond_Birthday]

That is also valid Isacc, my point is that fishing at this point won't gain information (I neglected to mention) and looks to be bad assuming scum roleblocker. Further, remember, FoS are meaningless in my mind. Only used to note. I am not sure how scummy his post is, but still, I don't like it and do... so, I am not sure if I am objective in viewing it. Also, I find it kind of odd to find all three lurkers as the mafia, but it isn't *that* impossible...

I guess it is helpful at least...

[Zachrulez]

I don't believe my argument is dismantled.

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

What kind of information?

We should not be lynching to gain information, we should be lynching to kill scum.

While you're all over me trying to prove me scum because you hate the way I made my argument, you're distracting from the far more important problem I had with your post.

Mainly that it lacked any reasons for suspecting anyone beyond the fact that you believed we could gain information from people's deaths.

If you're not sure what lynch to support, and your top 3 suspects lack a case behind them, what's the point of even answering Don's question at all?

Never mind that! Let's focus on how scummy you think my fos was!

Also keep in mind that he feels he's being misrepresented. The post is not DESIGNED to state for fact that he is scum, but the arguments are presented in a way to show why I believe him stating his post the way he did appeared to be scummy to me.

Of course his post was never meant to represent that he thought it was a good lynch! My representation was more to the concern of a subtle suggestion of wanting to gain information from someone's death if he's scum as opposed to actively making a case on someone. I'm reading into possible subtlety here.

Surely you can see the possibility of what he

could

be trying to do in that post if he's scum.

And frankly he does seem really bothered by it. I can't understand why he's blown up such a minor FOS and minor speculation over such a serious concern... unless he really DOES have something to hide.

I felt his post MIGHT have been a subtle nudge to get us to lynch a townie creating a reason to make us feel better about doing it (That we gained information from the lynch.)

It seems silly to say that in response to a post that wants a top 3 list of suspects... preferably with evidence and good reasons why... not because you think information could be gained from their deaths.

The whole idea of stating that seems silly to me anyway. Wouldn't it be better to remind the town of the information we gained from a lynch after the fact... to help point out the fact that the lynch actually wasn't pointless at all (In response to someone who might feel that it was.)... saying it before we actually decide on a lynch does bother me a little.

It doesn't prove anything and I never said you should be strung up for it. I just felt it was a little bit suspicious... but apparently you felt my suspicion was suspicious.

... This has been such an annoying distraction. I think maybe I'd be better served to reread the game and actually come up with my own top 3 list, something I have not been able to do up to this point for obvious reasons.

By the way, not all bad arguments or logic are necessarily scummy. Some come from misinterpretation of posts, tunnel vision, or just reading too much into what someone said.

Maybe I did read too much into your "information can be gained" thing, maybe I lucked out and got it perfectly right. But I'm not going to wuss out of being suspicious of it just because you attacked my logic, because that's exactly what you want me to do if you are scum.

[Zachrulez]

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

"Beyond_Birthday"]Bad Zachary! You have misrepresented Isacc's post entirely. Isacc never said that a weak lynch is preferred to a strong lynch. Isacc is basing his lynch list off of the current situation, in which a strong lynch is lacking. By Isacc's calculation, it is better to lynch the person from whom we would gain the most information is far preferred to a no lynch from which we gain nothing.

minor, meaningless, fos, only because I am sure you did not intend this. (I am posting this knowing full well Isacc defended himself on this matter.)

I understand why you feel I misrepped him. I wasn't arguing that he actively said it. I was arguing what I felt to be a position he might possibly not want to reveal if there is in fact anything to my concern over the point I previously stated to the "information from death" thing.

I probably should have made is clear that I was arguing from a possibility standpoint... and not as fact. I apologize for that much. I did not intend to misrepresent him in order to make him look scummy. I'm just trying to keep my mind open.

Also don't you think he'd have been a little bit better served to actually state reasons for suspecting his top 3, rather then the same blanket statement of gut feeling coupled with the belief that we can gain information from their deaths?

I do. But that's just one man's opinion.

[Percy]

Hi guys, I logged on with every intention of posting in this game, but there is so much to read at the moment and I just haven't gotten through it. I will have a post up hopefully in the next 24 hours.

[Beyond_Birthday]

While your general post is good (Honestly, neither of you are looking any scummier to me, just saying that I disagree with your PoV Zach; my fos is entirely off of the fact that I feel you are misrepresenting Isacc's statement, but that is just null cause you weren't about to get Isacc lynched so quickly off of that *in my mind), you must admit that the actual bickering here isn't benefiting town at this moment. In fact, zach, why not give the town as to who your top three lynches are and why?

[Isacc]

I don't believe my argument is dismantled.

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I guess since you believe it, it must not be dismantled!

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

What kind of information?

We should not be lynching to gain information, we should be lynching to kill scum.

Duh, which I never denied or disagreed with. Also, what if the information is

who the scum are

? Then a lynch that provided info would

lead

to a scum lynch.

Mainly that it lacked any reasons for suspecting anyone beyond the fact that you believed we could gain information from people's deaths.

Which is why I DIDN'T WANT THEM LYNCHED.

Look, it doesn't matter if I have no reason for suspecting someone, when I am not trying to get them lynched. Let's just say for a second I suspect McNuke still because I feel like it. Does it matter? No, because I am not voting him, attacking him, or getting him lynched, so my "suspicions" have no effect on the game.

Of course his post was never meant to represent that he thought it was a good lynch! My representation was more to the concern of a subtle suggestion of wanting to gain information from someone's death if he's scum as opposed to actively making a case on someone. I'm reading into possible subtlety here.

Surely you can see the possibility of what he could be trying to do in that post if he's scum.

More WIFOM like before. Any post can be re-interpreted as if it was actually scum trying to suggest things.

And frankly he does seem really bothered by it. I can't understand why he's blown up such a minor FOS and minor speculation over such a serious concern... unless he really DOES have something to hide.

Yes, I am bothered by misrepresentation. Seems like a logical thing to be.

It seems silly to say that in response to a post that wants a top 3 list of suspects... preferably with evidence and good reasons why... not because you think information could be gained from their deaths.

Not really. First, I have explained why information is helpful to town.
Second, he asked my top 3: just because my case is weak against them doesn't mean it still isn't stronger than against other people. I explained this in the other post that I still haven't seen you stop ignoring.

The whole idea of stating that seems silly to me anyway. Wouldn't it be better to remind the town of the information we gained from a lynch after the fact... to help point out the fact that the lynch actually wasn't pointless at all (In response to someone who might feel that it was.)... saying it before we actually decide on a lynch does bother me a little.

Why in all hell would I do that? So that you can call me out for backpedaling and get me lynched for lynching someone else? I don't think I want to hand anyone an easy reason to mislynch me.

Stating arguments ahead of time proves you aren't making things up. If you don't state your arguments first, you can end up fabricating evidence later, which would help the scum out. Thus, the pro-town thing to do is to make my case before I have to backpedal later.

It doesn't prove anything and I never said you should be strung up for it. I just felt it was a little bit suspicious

Oh really? A little bit suspicious? Let's check your original accusation.

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

Hmm...doesn't really seem like "a little bit." Seems pretty strong.

So now it seems like you are trying to slowly backpedal off of an argument that you can't win. If you really "don't believe [your] argument is dismantled" then why are you backing down in the strength of your suspicion?

This has been such an annoying distraction.

Yes, I am sure it's annoying when I start figuring out how scummy you are.

By the way, not all bad arguments or logic are necessarily scummy. Some come from misinterpretation of posts, tunnel vision, or just reading too much into what someone said.

Wrong. If you are town, you draw conclusions in an honest manner. Therefore, if you were town you should be able to either A) Prove your point, or B) Cede honestly that you were wrong. However, you did neither of these.

If you are scum, however, you have to often try and make scumtells out of things that town do, therefore you sometimes have to intentionally misinterpret, tunnel, or read farther than makes sense. Thus, these things can often be scumtells.

maybe I lucked out and got it perfectly right.

Why did you "luck out?" Didn't you actually believe in your own argument? If you were "lucky" that would suggest that you were taking a gamble, which would further suggest that you were grabbing at straws in your FOS against me. Kinda scummy to make arguments that will only work if you are "lucky."

But I'm not going to wuss out of being suspicious of it just because you attacked my logic, because that's exactly what you want me to do if you are scum.

Well, I already showed that you backed down somewhat in your suspicion, so a little contradictory here.

Also, I pointed out that if I attacked your logic and proved you were wrong (which you have yet to disprove), then it would be pro-town to back down. Otherwise, you are casting suspicion on something you

know

is false. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong is stupid.


I was only suspicious of you based on your FOS. However, your defense has gotten more and more scummy. So I think this warrants a

%% Vote: ZACHRULEZ

.

My case:

1. Misrep.
2. WIFOM.
3. Straw man argumentation (see Magnus's post)
4. Contradiction in his "level of suspicion"
5. Lot's of really weak logic

I may have a little more proof floating about, but I don't feel like I've fully analyzed it yet. Yeah, that sentence may be confusing, so ask if you don't understand it lol.

[Isacc]

EBWOP: Add this to my case:

6. Still ignoring the points I made in one of my posts.

[Zachrulez]

Also, I pointed out that if I attacked your logic and proved you were wrong (which you have yet to disprove), then it would be pro-town to back down. Otherwise, you are casting suspicion on something you

know

is false. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong is stupid.

This is the only thing I am really going to respond to now.

I think you would have voted me for backing down anything. I could see from the moment you responded to my FOS that you were looking for a good reason to vote for me. I'm pretty sure you would have argued backtracking.

I don't know it's false. I am keeping my mind open to possibilities and explaining something I didn't like about your post. I have no reason to believe you are being truthful about anything you've said.

You have turned a minor FOS into something huge. You are trying to blow something up that I didn't really go about in a particularly good way. What I feel you are trying to accomplish from this is... To get the sentiment of why I didn't like your post ignored. In order to accomplish this, you need to make me look as scummy as possible. If you can make me scummy... then perhaps no one will read into what you did.

By the way...

It doesn't make sense to say what you said in your 3 points post. It does make sense to actually make a case on your top 3 which is something you DIDN'T DO.

By the way... WHAT post? There's like 20-30 now... Funny that you hit me on your commentary, and surround me with an attack of all these damn posts, and then expect me to know exactly what post you are talking about and even go as far as to argue that it's scummy that I'm ignoring it...

Whatever, I'll try to find it myself.

[Zachrulez]

Do you mean this?

You misrepresented my post by claiming IN ANY WAY that I wanted those people lynched. They are only more suspicious in comparison to others, meaning that they are more my "least townie" than my "most scummy."

If you are scum you do. Advancing the idea that their deaths will gain us information seems to be a nudge to get us into that direction. I noted what I thought might be a subtle push towards that.

I never said you were scum, I never said you were actually trying to do it. I just kinda felt like it might have been nudging us in that direction though...

But it's apparent to me that you refuse to see why the way you worded your post might have looked bad.

Your original remark involved comments like "So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?" This is misrepresentation, because I

don't

want to lynch them.

I said that because I saw what you were saying via gain information via deaths to be a subtle push to lynching them. It is important to understand that.

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

Yes, I DO want to make a strong lynch that is scum. I was just giving the top three

at this point

in time, all of whom I thought should

not

be lynched yet.

Good, then don't post something problematic saying that you think we can gain information from someone's death. It makes me think you might want to lynch for that reason instead of wanting a strong lynch.

Anyways you want my reasonings? I do think that the most could be learned from lynching them, because I feel they've made the most connections to others.

You're still lacking a case. That bothers me.

However, I am not going to name exactly what those connections are just so that the people in question can begin their distancing. That would just warn any potential scum of my suspicions, which would be plain stupid.

Refusing to point out the connections you see is not beneficial to the town. It only serves to advance your own agenda on who you desire to attack. If you see connections. Let the town see them too. Or do you not trust anyone's judgment but you own?

Finally, I specifically said my cases weren't strong against

anyone

. I never wanted a lynch, so stop claiming I did. I was asked the top three, I named the top three. Just because one person is a

better

lynch does not mean I said they were a good lynch. 2 is higher than 1, but it still isn't 1000, get it?

I get it. I wasn't ignoring the fact you said this. I was pointing out what I saw as possible contradictions to that statement.

You blew the FOS way out of proportion. You made it look like I was trying to string you up. That was not even close to what I was doing at that point in time.

What is more scummy is the way you reacted, and how you eventually voted for me over it.

All you have done is opened up the possibility that you are on the attack against me only because of the FOS against you and that it JUST MIGHT BE that the reason you're on the attack and voting me now is because what I said may have rung more true then I initially realized when I actually pointed the post out.

I'm sure if my case was really so scummy, other people in the town could have pointed it out and come after me... but the speed and efficiency that you came onto the attack against me for nothing more then a simple FOS really does make me wonder.

[Zachrulez]

While your general post is good (Honestly, neither of you are looking any scummier to me, just saying that I disagree with your PoV Zach; my fos is entirely off of the fact that I feel you are misrepresenting Isacc's statement, but that is just null cause you weren't about to get Isacc lynched so quickly off of that *in my mind), you must admit that the actual bickering here isn't benefiting town at this moment. In fact, zach, why not give the town as to who your top three lynches are and why?

I am going to have to think this over a little bit more. I had a list and was going through the reasons why I thought they were lynch worthy, when Isacc's overreaction to my FOS distracted me.

My list is going to look a little bit different now, so I'm going to have to sleep on it and try to put things into perspective tommorow.

[Isacc]

I think you would have voted me for backing down anything. I could see from the moment you responded to my FOS that you were looking for a good reason to vote for me. I'm pretty sure you would have argued backtracking.

So basically, I gather that this is saying you were trying to avoid my vote by not backtracking, because you thought I would call you out for backtracking? Why are you so eager to please me?

You have turned a minor FOS into something huge. You are trying to blow something up that I didn't really go about in a particularly good way. What I feel you are trying to accomplish from this is... To get the sentiment of why I didn't like your post ignored. In order to accomplish this, you need to make me look as scummy as possible. If you can make me scummy... then perhaps no one will read into what you did.

The "minor" (and I still call bull on the fact that it was minor) FOS is not what I find hugely scummy. It's the reasoning behind it, and the defense after it, and your continuing arguments that seem scummy to me.


Anyways, moving on to your next post.

If you are scum you do.

WIFOM. Again. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me three times, I think I see a trend!

I said that because I saw what you were saying via gain information via deaths to be a subtle push to lynching them.

Total contradiction. You put words into my mouth by saying I wanted them lynched

word-for-word

, and now you are backpedaling by saying it was just noting what "might" have been a "subtle push."

You're still lacking a case. That bothers me.

NO DUH. I said that I had no substantial cases. My case was that they were the ones who had made connections to other people, therefore their deaths could tell us the alignment of other people.

And guess what,

now

I no longer need cases on them for now, because they aren't the people who I find the most scummy. There is no point in trying to fabricate a stronger case on people I admitted weren't strong lynches to begin with, when I find someone else scummy. So at this point, my lack of a case is no longer relevant.

Refusing to point out the connections you see is not beneficial to the town.

No, it's not. Must I spell it out for you?

I think Person A and Person B are scumbuddying up. If I call them out

now

then Person B starts distancing and by the time Person A flips scum, Person B goes "No, that buddying was just a coincidence, look at how much I was against Person A!"

If I said now who I thought the people had made connections to, it would provide any scum associated with them the opportunity to distance themselves, which would help them to hide. Thus, explaining the connections would help the scum, and thus be

anti-town

.

You blew the FOS way out of proportion. You made it look like I was trying to string you up.

I didn't make it look like that at all. I didn't care that you claim it was a weak FOS, or whatnot, the fact is you threw suspicion at me on craplogic and WIFOM.

Oh and you keep on claiming that I blew the FOS out of proportion. Kinda straw man logic. To me it looks like you are trying to argue against my entire argument by hammering the point that you think I overreacted.

What is more scummy is the way you reacted, and how you

eventually voted for me over it

.

The bolded is basically a total lie, since I found your defenses more scummy than the FOS itself, so I wasn't voting you over an FOS at all. I was voting you over repeatedly bad logic.

All you have done is opened up the possibility that you are on the attack against me only because of the FOS against you and that it JUST MIGHT BE that the reason you're on the attack and voting me now is because what I said may have rung more true then I initially realized when I actually pointed the post out.

More WIFOM. I don't even know what four times makes it.

I'm sure if my case was really so scummy, other people in the town could have pointed it out and come after me

I don't see why they can't now. And why can't I make my own case myself? Must I wait for other people to do it for me?

In fact, I don't want other people to make my case for me. I don't want to make my fellow town members fall under attack from other scum trying to twist their words. When I have a case, I'll make it myself.

I am satisfied with where my vote is.

[Zachrulez]

Ok scum.

Feel free to continue to verify that my case has at least some merit since you are claiming I am arguing WIFOM.

You're scum and you're fucked.

I think the most likely thing that's going to happen today is that either I am going to get lynched or you are.

And once I am confirmed as town post lynch, there's no way out for you tomorrow.

I wasn't trying to avoid your vote by the way, because I saw it as inevitable no matter what I said anyway. The fact that you voted for me does not surprise or bother me at all.

I am positive you are scum... so I might as well vote for you now, regardless of the OMGUS accusations that are bound to come for doing so.

%% unvote
%% Vote : Isacc

I think it's obvious that Isacc is number 1 on my scum list right now. I'll get the other 2 people and my reasons up tomorrow.

[don_johnson]

mkay. interesting turnabout. first, can someone please explain how zach "strawmanned". i believe it was Magnus who pointed it out so i would like Magnus to further explain. simply quoting a sentence and writing thew word "strawman" doesn't make it so. explain it please.

Isacc: not sure if you are overeacting here, but this seems blown out of proportion on boht sides. it is still relevant as to why you put those three people on your list. just because you are currently voting for zach doesn't excuse you from explaining yourself. for the record, i don't see you as scum. i need a more organized case from zach before i buy it. i think you are defending yourself, however, your argument begins pretty coherent, your last couple posts seem to be "cherrypicking". by that i mean you are isolating quotes and giving third party observers no way of understanding your responses because the quotes are not in context. i'm not saying to quote the whole posts you are trashing, but a single line quote needs more around it to be quantified in the eyes of others.

zach: i don't see it, honestly you guys seem to be omgusing it pretty bad. i didn't see any reason to press Isacc as hard as you did. though i want more reasoning for his "lynch" list, i find it perfectly acceptable for him to say "these are my top three," and "i am not comfortable with any lynch right now." yes, he needs to explain, but your argument seems to be reaching.

that said, did anyone notice this:

Well thus far my order of lynches is:
1.) Zach. He seems suspicious for the the lack of an odd role claim at this point. If no odd role is called then it is very important to know for sure if he is scum to help gain a better definite understanding of how this particular game works.

2.) Rogue. Although I have not noticed any major red flags from his posts, his seem the most suspicious in terms of possible reasons behind his actions.

3.)Magus. He has have been all over the board. He seems to have a default strategy of supporting the majority on almost every issue. Very weak and does not mean much, but just a thought.

I would not confirm any of these now, but this is just my list as it stands.

followed up by:

Magnus:
Like I said before there was not much to go off of. It is mostly a comment on how I feel your play style has left very little to judge you on. My point about being all over is mostly that you are very aggressive meaning that you have gone after so many people that its hard to draw many conclusions from your actions.

As for the majority comment its just look at all the vote counts through the game and look who is voting for the person who has the most votes on them. Either you voted them, will vote them very soon, or had voted them and recently unvoted them. I may just be a result of your aggressive play style, but it was just something I noticed.

this is an example of something that needs explaining. please cite evidence for these claims. i would like either quotes or post numbers that show these patterns. you are piggybacking here. unacceptable.

why is everyone unvoting mag? because he won't give us information? i would like top threes from the unvoters soon. mine will be up today.

[Isacc]

Ok scum.

Feel free to continue to verify that my case has at least some merit since you are claiming I am arguing WIFOM.

You're scum and you're fucked.

I think the most likely thing that's going to happen today is that either I am going to get lynched or you are.

And once I am confirmed as town post lynch, there's no way out for you tomorrow.

I wasn't trying to avoid your vote by the way, because I saw it as inevitable no matter what I said anyway. The fact that you voted for me does not surprise or bother me at all.

I am positive you are scum... so I might as well vote for you now, regardless of the OMGUS accusations that are bound to come for doing so.

%% unvote
%% Vote : Isacc

I think it's obvious that Isacc is number 1 on my scum list right now. I'll get the other 2 people and my reasons up tomorrow.

Nice. Basically no explanation here for why I'm scum except that I voted you. I hate to call OMGUS, but I really see no other strong case you've made.

Also, note the bold. WIFOM has no merit. It's a scumtactic. I have no clue what you think you are trying to say, but you arguing WIFOM is bad.

You continue to make me comfortable with my vote.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

Sorry for the late vote count, you guys post to much when I am asleep.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

Actually... Vote Count bump... didn't see the Post #