Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[Xdaamno]

I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.

Dosen't need responding to, as I noted above.

If the vote was made to apply pressure (which it wasn't) and that pressure produced a result (a town read from Patrick's response), there is no reason to keep your vote there. It served its purpose and may lead people to think you think Patrick is still worth voting (even though the stated purpose of your vote has elapsed, you aren't questioning him any further and you seem content with your most recent label of him as performing town actions). Since at this point in the game you don't "use votes purely as an indicator of who [you] suspect" (120), your continued use of the vote for any purpose (pressure or suspicion indicator) doesn't make sense because no purpose continues to apply to the vote.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I

showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose

, and said I wanted you to either

show me the benifet of removing it

, or

show why it cannot possibly have any value

. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

At the time of 'choosing' whether to unvote, I wasn't making a conscious decision. I was simply thinking "eh, this might help, there's no reason to remove it". I thought that if anyone was confused by my vote, I could explain my 'reasoning' later on. People do this all the time - even if my vote is being detrimental, which is ridiculous imo, it barely even matters, and so I chose to leave the vote where it is.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts.

Nope. You're starting to stink up this thread with all this crap you're spewing.

Blah blah blah...

GC: "Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact." (102)
X: "Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure." (103)
GC: "Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?" (111)
X:

No response given

.

Oh, I missed post 111 completely. I'll go back and respond to it. But first, take a look at this amazingly grievous mishap!:

This was as a rebuttal to his "I'm not gonna change" defense, so I was not actually implying anything.

The only "do not change" statement I made was, quote, "If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it?" Big difference.

The bolded part was left out completely! Dun dun DUNNN!

Even if this wasn't true, and

my posts

were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

(My emphasis.)
GC: "But because the

purpose you have given for your vote

is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote." (121 - My emphasis.)
I didn't call your post a lie, I called the after-the-fact purpose given for your vote (pressure on Patrick for him to answer) a lie. Nice attempt to shift the argument, but it isn't going to work.

Wait, so you think I was actually lying about what I thought your post meant? If not, you're blantantly trying to twist this point to your own, unfair advantage. If so, I'll respond again when you reply.

Responding to your other post now. I'd like to hear which side of this argument people in this thread are on, because I don't particularly want to continue it.

=======================

Page 6 Votecount

camn (1/7): Korts,
charter (1/7): OhGodMyLife
DizzyIzzyB13 (3/7): Ether, Incognito, charter
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (3/7): Yosarian2, Green Crayons, Patrick
Yosarian2 (0/7):

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, camn

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle.

I never said that you started out with the intent to change his play, nor did I mean to suggest at any point you attempted to ask him to change his style of play. What struck me is that you call out his play as scummy/suspicious, he explains its his normal play and that he's not going to change, you decide to embrace his normal play as an acceptable scum tell (by suggesting "I'm just observing - don't change!"). You could have said anything when Patrick suggested this was his normal play (e.g. "Well, I'll keep that in mind," "Well, it seems scummy to me - you should keep that in mind," "Well, I find that to be bogus because X, Y and Z."). But instead, you embraced it - so that by the time you realized that his normal, everyday play would be considered scummy and suspicious to you, you welcomed it ("...wasn't asking you to change" in 91) and supported its continuance ("...why would I want [Patrick] to change [his behavior]?" in 101). Instead of addressing and even acknowledging the fact that his

normal play

was considered "suspicious" and "scummy" to you, you were happy to have him continue on his way in order to pin him later on it.

Absolute bullshit, but not really your fault; I meant to imply that my second 'town read' was a (opposite of 'buffer') to my original tell. I think that if you read through my posts, that should be very apparent.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

If you can say that Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style, then in any instance you can say that Patrick is scum (because of his play style) and therefore must be lynched (regardless of his alignment). But, I mean: seriously? Are you really asking me this after I just had this conversation with camn?

Have you been paying attention to the thread at all

, scumbag?

Obviously, "Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style" is a stupid argument. You should have checked this was not what I was actually saying, but you did not, and know your whole point has collapsed upon itself.

Not that you actually responded to my point, anyway. I was asking why would scum admit to wanting to have someone lynched regardless of their alignment, which you seemed to miss.

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall...

I find your "gauging reactions" to be "throwing shit at a wall." I don't find all attempts to gauge reactions to be throwing shit. Just yours (for the time being).

Unfounded, and illogical anyway. You have an annoying habit of cutting out the quotes I am responding to. It was pretty clear that you simply stated I seemed to be throwing shit against a wall because of my post: "I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was."

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?

1. Because your point is weak.
2. Because you give little support for your point.
3. Because you're attempting to "gauge Patrick's reaction," and then promptly drop the line of questioning. Which is bullshit. That's like me asking "HEY CAMN! Are you scum?" With a reply of "No! Of course not!" and me going "Oh. Okay. ... Just checking! Thx!"

1 and 2 are circular logic but more importantly, imo, they're the same thing. More bullshit underhanded, dishonest, harmful, invalid tactics on display...

3 is just plain fucking stupid. You're saying that if someone investigates someone else, and finds them to be town (not 'ask them if they are town', and 'they say that they are town', as you bizzarely try and twist the situation to be) then the investigation itself was a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.

No it isn't you big fat liar. You give no reasonable explanation why you pulled a 180 after Patrick's response. No follow up question. No explanation. Just: Oh, You're so totally town after I just accused you of being suspicious and scummy! It looks like Patrick could have said "Durr Durr I enjoy eating peanut butter..." and you would have gone "Town!" Your "Town!" response is so contrived, it doesn't matter what Patrick's response could have been - you would have said the exact same thing.

Yes, I did give an explanation for why I backed off: I got a town read on his reply. You then move on to say that while I did give an explanation, I didn't give any reasons for that explanation, which is valid (the first valid thing you've said in this thread ever, probably). I will identify the reasons in my next post.

Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?

When you directly tell someone you are suspiscious, I feel they wise up a little more and start acting consciously. This may just be a personal preference.

[Xdaamno]

By the way, if your next post is as underhand and illogical as the rest, I'm just going to discontinue arguing. It's stressful for me to reply to, and this argument dosen't seem to be getting anywhere.

Pre-emptive: Thinking I am 'jumping ship' is circular logic; if I am lying and I am scum then I might want to jump ship, but if I am truthful in my arguments and I am town, I would have no motivation to do so. If I was town and felt I was losing the argument, jumping ship would not be a scum tell because I would be town.

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Not sure why you put in "a while ago", this game was invitational 10, pretty recent. OGML was replaced quite early, but during his stay in the game alot of his suspicions were quite vague with a fair amount of vibes or gut type stuff. Sure, I guess it's possible he's had a drastic change of philosophy since then and now hates vibes, but it seems unlikely, and I don't see why you felt the need to cut across this at all. Why wouldn't it mean anything? What are you arguing?

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

This is just the way I post. It's not gonna change.

Yeah, wasn't asking you to change. I was just making an observation.

Fairly town reaction, I think...

As I said above, I'll now try and explain why I thought this post was town. The "this is just the way I post" defense is something I think I see quite a lot. It completely misses the point, but I can just put myself in the shoes of a town player being confused at why they are being attacked. I feel a scum player would not react in this way, because defensiveness would typically be a more dominant emotion than confusion is such a situation, IMO.

This is an explanation of my vibes. Vibes are as such because they are usually complicated and are part of human instinct - if you didn't think I thought all that at the time you're right, but rather I instinctively did that logic in my head and categorized it as 'vibes', like people do all the time.

[Patrick]

Text walls. I don't agree with every point GC makes against you: the thing about why you needed to vote rather than just using words to pressure me seems a stretch, since votes are fairly widely accepted as a means of applying pressure. I'm not sure I believe that's what you were trying to do though; your posts after that seem consistent with someone who sensed trouble and backed off, and despite asking a couple of times you've refused to explain what you found scummy about my questioning of OGML. After previewing:

Pre-emptive: Thinking I am 'jumping ship' is circular logic; if I am lying and I am scum then I might want to jump ship, but if I am truthful in my arguments and I am town, I would have no motivation to do so. If I was town and felt I was losing the argument, jumping ship would not be a scum tell because I would be town.

See, this is exactly what I think you might have been doing. I don't understand this defence at all, and it sounds circular itself. Why would we start by assuming your alignment then work backwards? I think your actions might indicate that you're scum who made a bad attack on me and kinda played both sides (saying town reaction but leaving a vote on in case there's some support), and I think that because it currently makes more sense to me than the version you've given. Please clarify this defence.

As I said above, I'll now try and explain why I thought this post was town. The "this is just the way I post" defense is something I think I see quite a lot. It completely misses the point, but I can just put myself in the shoes of a town player being confused at why they are being attacked. I feel a scum player would not react in this way, because defensiveness would typically be a more dominant emotion than confusion is such a situation, IMO.

Can you explain how I missed the point? You say my phrases might indicate a scum alignment, I tell you it indicates nothing, what did I miss? I know that aren't trying to get me to change the way I post. Also, what's your take on GC?

[Patrick]

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe.

I'd be interested to know what makes you lean town on Izzy. I got a kind of vague town vibe from her last post, but her play in general is hardly inspiring. Do share.

(For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

I thought you were mildly supporting his reasons for voting me, have I somehow misread that?

[Incognito]

I haven't read through the text walls yet but I have two questions which have been left outstanding by none other than the text wallers!:

@Xdaamno's 93:

Does it bother you that I too called out DizzyIzzy for not scum hunting by page 4? What's the difference between my calling her out for this and charter's?

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe. (<3)

wut

(The second one was 'txt tlk' for the word "what?", as in elaborate on these reads, plz.)

[Xdaamno]

Text walls. I don't agree with every point GC makes against you: the thing about why you needed to vote rather than just using words to pressure me seems a stretch, since votes are fairly widely accepted as a means of applying pressure. I'm not sure I believe that's what you were trying to do though; your posts after that seem consistent with someone who sensed trouble and backed off, and despite asking a couple of times you've refused to explain what you found scummy about my questioning of OGML. After previewing:

Pre-emptive: Thinking I am 'jumping ship' is circular logic; if I am lying and I am scum then I might want to jump ship, but if I am truthful in my arguments and I am town, I would have no motivation to do so. If I was town and felt I was losing the argument, jumping ship would not be a scum tell because I would be town.

See, this is exactly what I think you might have been doing. I don't understand this defence at all, and it sounds circular itself. Why would we start by assuming your alignment then work backwards? I think your actions might indicate that you're scum who made a bad attack on me and kinda played both sides (saying town reaction but leaving a vote on in case there's some support), and I think that because it currently makes more sense to me than the version you've given. Please clarify this defence.

I'm basically trying to outline the possible scenarios. I'm not proposing the you assume my alignment and then go from there, I'm proposing you assume all possible alignments and situations and see which ones makes the most sense.

The argument would be circular logic because both the "Xdaamno is scum and is jumping ship" and the "Xdaamno is town and is jumping ship/not jumping ship" seem reasonable, and therefore to say jumping ship makes me scum is invalid because you have to actually assume I'm scum in the first place for that to actually make sense.

Sorry, I know I'm explaining this badly. I hope that's helped. If anyone sees things like that in my posts, I'd also appreciate it if you asked me to clarify rather than brushing it off.

As I said above, I'll now try and explain why I thought this post was town. The "this is just the way I post" defense is something I think I see quite a lot. It completely misses the point, but I can just put myself in the shoes of a town player being confused at why they are being attacked. I feel a scum player would not react in this way, because defensiveness would typically be a more dominant emotion than confusion is such a situation, IMO.

Can you explain how I missed the point? You say my phrases might indicate a scum alignment, I tell you it indicates nothing, what did I miss? I know that aren't trying to get me to change the way I post. Also, what's your take on GC?

[Xdaamno]

I haven't read through the text walls yet but I have two questions which have been left outstanding by none other than the text wallers!:

Actually, you know, I would be fine if you just read a few of our back-and-forth points before you took sides, because I honestly believe I have defeated each and every argument he has presented.

@Xdaamno's 93:

Does it bother you that I too called out DizzyIzzy for not scum hunting by page 4? What's the difference between my calling her out for this and charter's?

Yeah, if you said the same thing it would be equally illogical - there is, of course, no reason to exempt you. I can't remember seeing that post, though. Either I missed it, or I saw it and saw you weren't being aggresive enough for me to use my time up arguing against you.

[Green Crayons]

More text walls. Eye bleeding ahead, I'm sure.

I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.

Either you don't want me to express my opinions because they might hurt your scum feelings or you want me to put it just beneath the paragraph that I put it before. Either way, no. I'm comfortable with my opinions, expressing them and where/when I decide to do so.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose, and said I wanted you to either show me the benifet of removing it, or show why it cannot possibly have any value. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

I showed why your vote could not have some kind of purpose for the reasons you have stated - why it had no value. The fact that you conceed

right here

that the "vote is probably useless" only confirms the fact that you see that I have made this point. It has no value and no purpose according to the reasons you have attributed to it after you made it.

At the time of 'choosing' whether to unvote, I

wasn't making a conscious decision

. I was simply

thinking

"eh, this might help, there's no reason to remove it". I

thought

that if anyone was confused by my vote, I could explain my 'reasoning' later on.

(My emphasis.) And, blol. Contradiction.

People do this all the time - even if my vote is being detrimental, which is ridiculous imo, it barely even matters, and so I chose to leave the vote where it is.

You don't know how your vote will affect other people - be it detrimental, or otherwise. Regardless, you suggest that if there were to be a detrimental effect it "barely even matters." ...Even though you think Patrick performed a town response? I usually don't want people thinking detrimental thoughts towards a player I think is probably town. But I know this is just c r a z y t h i n k i n g.

Oh, and heh: Argumentum ad Populum. Nice.

The bolded part was left out completely! Dun dun DUNNN!

I was tempted to respond to that specific quote, but it was subsumed in my first two paragraphs of 111 and I didn't feel like repeating myself beyond what was necessary.

Wait, so you think I was actually lying about what I thought your post meant? If not, you're blantantly trying to twist this point to your own, unfair advantage.

Well, I can think that you're lying or that you are blind/thick (choose one that is least insulting, I don't want to be thought too callous on the internet to a scumbag with my opinions). I actually tend to think the best of my fellow players, and automatically don't assume that you don't read what my post explicitly states.

I meant to imply that my second 'town read' was a (opposite of 'buffer') to my original tell.

I actually don't follow what you're trying to say here. Feel free to expound.

Obviously, "Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style" is a stupid argument.

Stupid meta arguments have been known to lynch players. Amazing, but true.

You should have checked this was not what I was actually saying, but you did not, and know your whole point has collapsed upon itself.

But, that is what it looks like you're saying to me, and you haven't persuaded me otherwise (hint: simply saying it isn't true doesn't make it so).

I was asking why would scum admit to wanting to have someone lynched regardless of their alignment, which you seemed to miss.

In general, because it has been known to work? Specifically to this game, because nobody gave camn too much crap about it re: charter except for me, and maybe you thought it might work for you? I don't know, it's hard to speculate on the motives of scum, especially when they slip up.

Unfounded, and illogical anyway. You have an annoying habit of cutting out the quotes I am responding to. It was pretty clear that you simply stated I seemed to be throwing shit against a wall because of my post: "I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was."

Not unfounded - my posts for the past page and a half have been about why I think your specific post was shit against a wall. And, yes. It is pretty clear that I stated that because of

your specific post

, at which point you suggested that I thought

all

posts of that sort were shit on walls. Which is bogus, as I said (and as you're saying now). It's your post, not posts like it in general. Thanks for contradicting yourself to agree with me.

1 and 2 are circular logic but more importantly, imo, they're the same thing. More bullshit underhanded, dishonest, harmful, invalid tactics on display...

One and Two aren't the same thing. I didn't mean "weak" as in "a lack of support." I meant "weak" as in "has little significance in the large scheme of things." It's like saying if this thread was a conversation about why the ocean is salty, you decided to comment upon the color of a single coral reef and how that's something worthy of note. It's a weak point of discussion. That's different from a lack of support for that point.

3 is just plain fucking stupid. You're saying that if someone investigates someone else, and finds them to be town (not 'ask them if they are town', and 'they say that they are town', as you bizzarely try and twist the situation to be) then the investigation itself was a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Hey, whoa. Little did I know investigating someone for their "suspicious" and "scummy" actions could legitimately turn someone's opinion around 180 degrees with a single response. Silly me!

When you directly tell someone you are suspiscious, I feel they wise up a little more and start acting consciously. This may just be a personal preference.

So, wait. I'm confused. Are you suggesting here that you saying "Patrick, your actions here are suspicious" doesn't tell Patrick that you're suspicious, but adding a vote

totally

makes him understand? Also, are you now suggesting that your vote was intended to have Patrick change his behavior (so that he would "start acting consciously?"). Because that's how I'm reading it.

(The second one was 'txt tlk' for the word "what?", as in elaborate on these reads, plz.)

I thought you were referring to the pipe phrase with your question. I'll respond in my next post now that this has caught my attention, as I don't feel like typing any further at the moment.

Also, preview shows more posts. I haven't read them nor am I going to.. probably will get to it Sunday or something.

[Xdaamno]

Sorry for coming off aggresively, btw. I know I have a problem with that. There's a few things I'd like to respond to now, but I want to get to bed and I know I'll get carried away - will post tommorow.

[OhGodMyLife]

I'm interested in the fact that while camn claimed to have a predisposition to see anything coming from charter as scummy no matter what, now that he's actually doing something scummy she claims not to see anything wrong with it.

I'm not really interested in the debate going on between Green Crayons and Xdaamno. They both seem town, and this kind of town-town debate threatens to totally muffle anything else for the rest of the day, leaving us with a lot of nothing to work with, and providing a big fat shield for the real scum to hide behind.

[camn]

Its not that weird. You could say I admitted that I have a terrible read on charter, and I can't be trusted.

However, I agree re: GC and X. I would love for it to blow over.. but they are both so verbose I hardly know where to insert a comment.

[OhGodMyLife]

camn: So, you set up your random vote on the premise that you frequently find charter scummy regardless of circumstances, but now that we've moved on to real play you change this position to one of "I can't read charter ever so don't mind me I'll just ignore him." ...OK. Well that just makes me want to lynch charter even more.

[camn]

Lets do it then.

But first.. could you elaborate on your charter-suspicion? You only barely touched on your reasoning.

I mildly

agree

that Dizzy was internally inconsistent, and I think that charter jumping on it was very charter-esque.
I would hardly say I ignored it.. in fact I looked at the events pretty hard. I did not conclude that Dizzy = scum.. but I can see charter's point.

In fact, it stikes me as kind of odd that even though you have a serious vote on charter,

you

are clearly ignoring him. . . instead spending all these bytes chatting with me!

Hmm.

[OhGodMyLife]

I've recently found that focusing on whats going on around my quarry is a more effective way of scumhunting than focusing directly on my quarry.

I'm reading your description of charter's Izzy vote as "charter-esque" to mean matching some kind of

town

meta for charter, especially in light of the fact that you say you can see charter's point. Is this the case? And if so, why the seeming willingness to submit to my call to lynch charter?

With your last post you've given me enough of a reason to re-examine my own opinion of charter though.

[OhGodMyLife]

Oh right. My charter suspicion stemmed primarily from this post, which I brought up with this comment:

charter's post 67 is a pretty list, but he doesn't draw any conclusions from it. And post 70 is self-defense meta. It feels like he's skating.

At that point he was on my radar. He sealed the deal with the timing of his Izzy vote and the flippant brushoff I got here:

Did you miss my concerns about your last two posts in your rush to jump on that bandwagon?

Yes.

The Izzy vote seems like going after an easy target, and he seems to be using his offensive against Izzy as a way to ignore whats going on in the rest of the game, and specifically to dodge the point I raised to begin with. It is also hypocritical, something I brought up when I voted charter in the first place.

So that is why I'm voting charter.

[Korts]

Posting to say that I am about a page and a half behind; I will be able to catch up on Monday.

[Xdaamno]

I'm interested in the fact that while camn claimed to have a predisposition to see anything coming from charter as scummy no matter what, now that he's actually doing something scummy she claims not to see anything wrong with it.

I'm not really interested in the debate going on between Green Crayons and Xdaamno. They both seem town, and this kind of town-town debate threatens to totally muffle anything else for the rest of the day, leaving us with a lot of nothing to work with, and providing a big fat shield for the real scum to hide behind.

Its not that weird. You could say I admitted that I have a terrible read on charter, and I can't be trusted.

However, I agree re: GC and X. I would love for it to blow over.. but they are both so verbose I hardly know where to insert a comment.

Scooped ya' both, though I disagree with the way you're seeing the day is a limited amount of time, OGML ("...for the rest of the day"). We can always extend it.

[camn]

I'm reading your description of charter's Izzy vote as "charter-esque" to mean matching some kind of

town

meta for charter, especially in light of the fact that you say you can see charter's point. Is this the case? And if so, why the seeming willingness to submit to my call to lynch charter?

And this, my friend, is the rub. I only have town-meta on charter. And the meta is scummy=town, which obviously is useless meta in every way. And re: my willingness? I am a bloodthirtsy whore, willing to lynch almost anyone with very little provocation. You should see what I do when I am a vig! >wink<

However, after you elaborate, I see that your case is logical, but I don't think it is very strong.
The fact that charter "brushed you off" is not a scumtell, I don't think.. in fact, if anything it is a town tell, right? He was upfront and unconcerned with your characterization of him.
He admits to jumping on the wagon, and early day 1 wagoning is null, IMO.

So, overall.. although I love lynches, I don't think this case has any traction. But give charter some time, I am sure he will do something totally lynch-worthy soon.

[charter]

Oh right. My charter suspicion stemmed primarily from this post, which I brought up with this comment:

charter's post 67 is a pretty list, but he doesn't draw any conclusions from it. And post 70 is self-defense meta. It feels like he's skating.

At that point he was on my radar. He sealed the deal with the timing of his Izzy vote and the flippant brushoff I got here:

Did you miss my concerns about your last two posts in your rush to jump on that bandwagon?

Yes.

The Izzy vote seems like going after an easy target, and he seems to be using his offensive against Izzy as a way to ignore whats going on in the rest of the game, and specifically to dodge the point I raised to begin with. It is also hypocritical, something I brought up when I voted charter in the first place.

So that is why I'm voting charter.

What were you expecting me to say in response to that? "Ok"? That's about all I can think to respond with. I don't see how I can be "brushing off" something this minute. From what I gather, the whole reason you're voting me is because I voted for dizzy. What kind of response were you expecting? Me to unvote dizzy just because you vote me? Seems like you're trying to make this seem way more important than it is.

Time to read the rest of this monster.

[charter]

Also, charter, you switched votes onto Incognito on page 1 after Ether explained her reasoning, why do that if you don't see anything scummy about confirming late?

That looked like the most promising page one bandwagon.

I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?

I had just asked her about it because that was really the only time she asked anyone else a string of questions, I don't find late confirmation scummy, so I asked why she was looking in to that rather than scumhunting. Ether has done a lot more than accuse incognito of late confirming.

GC/Xdaamo - Xdaamo certainly looks bad here. I thought GC's initial point and then 121 were good. I think it's getting out of hand with all these text walls now.

I did not conclude that Dizzy = scum.. but I can see charter's point.

I didn't conclude this either.

[OhGodMyLife]

What were you expecting me to say in response to that? "Ok"? That's about all I can think to respond with.

I was hoping you'd go back to that nice list you made and actually draw some conclusions based on it. You've still got a big "Information Instead of Analysis" sign hanging around your neck.

From what I gather, the whole reason you're voting me is because I voted for dizzy.

Hey look, charter is setting up a straw man just to knock it down.

What kind of response were you expecting? Me to unvote dizzy just because you vote me? Seems like you're trying to make this seem way more important than it is.

And he thinks he's knocked it down.

[charter]

What were you expecting me to say in response to that? "Ok"? That's about all I can think to respond with.

I was hoping you'd go back to that nice list you made and actually draw some conclusions based on it. You've still got a big "Information Instead of Analysis" sign hanging around your neck.

From what I gather, the whole reason you're voting me is because I voted for dizzy.

Hey look, charter is setting up a straw man just to knock it down.

What kind of response were you expecting? Me to unvote dizzy just because you vote me? Seems like you're trying to make this seem way more important than it is.

And he thinks he's knocked it down.

What are you even talking about? You said virtually nothing on me and expect me to have some dramatic reaction, then when I just say nothing in response, I'm scum? Your initial suspicion was poor and the fact that you're presenting it like it's cut and dry that I'm scum is ridiculous.

[Yosarian2]

My reactions to the GC/X fight:

GC looks really town in post 102 and post 111. Also, just as GC started to look really, really town to me, Camn said:

Unvote : Green Crayons

You rule.

Which makes me feel better about her; when someone else seems to react the same way I do at the same time, it makes me think we might be looking at the game from the same perspetive..

I like this point and question of Ether's:

I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? )

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe. (<3)

wut

Also a good question, actually; I have no real read on Izzy at the moment, and I'm curious why GC thinks she's town.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

...

He's doing a lot of bobbing and weaving here. Which makes me feel like Ether landed a solid hit. Also, while he can't give a good reason for specifically keeping his vote on Patrick, I notice he still dosn't move it in this post.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose, and said I wanted you to either show me the benifet of removing it, or show why it cannot possibly have any value. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

The point is, we have enough information at this point so you should be able to have some kind of better-then-random vote on someone. Do you think your vote on Patrick is more likely to be on scum then a random vote would be? Because it really didn't sound like it based on your earlier posts.

[Ether]

I have stopped reading the Xdaamno/Canary spat. I'm interpreting Xdaamno's failure to have voted anyone else as him not actually finding anyone else scummy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

I thought you were mildly supporting his reasons for voting me, have I somehow misread that?

That is what I was doing. Heh--looking back at your 85 I think

I

misread your interpretation. I'm not sure what you were getting at with "strange," looking closer. I agreed with OGML and

didn't

vote you for it.

I am eagerly awaiting Korts's catchup post.