The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[dingoatemybaby]

Sorry for letting my frustration get the best of me.

[Percy]

Epic post detected! Brace yourselves!

ZONEACE promised a post on Wednesday. I am going to Vote: ZONEACE until he comes up with some fucking excellent scumhunting.

In your experience, does this kind of vote actually get lurkers to post? Would you support pushing up the vote count on him and eventually lynching if he doesn't provide "excellent scumhunting"?

Calling out lurkers, voting for them and demanding quality participation doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't have much experience, so I can't comment on its overall efficacy, but I'm willing to give it a spin.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

These two posts are his original objections. Based on these posts, I would say that dingo's objective was not to get me to change my vote.
He (apparently) used the strategy I am using now in a game where he was scum, and he found it helped him be scum. I don't think it suits my playstyle to avoid talking about lynches and expressing my strong opinion either way, so that's not why I am doing it, but I can see his reservations.

Dr Pepper's first post:

dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.

The first sentence is inaccurate. The rest is a defense of how it's not leading to my lack of commitment on any particular issue, as that was what dingo isolated as the 'benefit' of the scum tactic. I think his argument is something like "he's not using it how you're afraid he'll use it, so what's the problem?'

Note that this is not an argument against dingo's original proposition. It could very well let you avoid committing to a lynch - Dr Pepper is pointing out that it's not

in this instance

.


Something like this:

Dingo: Percy may be using a scum tactic that helps him to do X.
Pepper: The tactic that he's using isn't helping him do X.


However, Pepper now says:

It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.

... which is where things start to become less clear. The fact that dingo pointed out the possibility that I may be doing it for scummy reasons was not a bad thing, imo, especially if he's used the same tactic I'm using now in a scummy way. I didn't read it as an attempt to change my vote - I read it as a discussion he wanted to have about my choice of tactic. I didn't feel pressured to change my vote. However, Dr Pepper read it that way, and away we went.

I'm not asking him to change his vote. But that stance that he won't change his vote unless Zoneface provides excellent scumhunting? Not a solid position. Lurking can be scummy, but votes should eventually move to who ever is MOST scummy.

Keeping a vote on a lurker can be a useful play for scum. You have an excuse to not vote for a scum buddy. You will not be blamed for the lynching of a townie if the town is going after one of their own.

This is not to say lurkers should not be pressured. If he does not respond to prods, he should be replaced. If he responds to prods but continues to lurk, he should be considered a candidate for a lynch. Putting a vote on a lurker now probably does not do much.

I defended myself at the time, in an attempt to explain my thinking behind the tactic. Dr Pepper especially objected to this post; he read it as further accusations that I wasn't contributing, whilst dingo was continuing to insist that the tactic itself can be scummy. I think they were talking at cross purposes, with dingo off in abstract meta mafia land and Dr Pepper actually looking at my playstyle.

Sidenote: dingo, are you more inclined to believe ZONEACE/tubby to be scum now, given the above quote and his replacement-then-lurk?

Now dingo continues to take exception to my use of 'excellent'. Is he honestly worried that I will say "Thanks for actively participating in the thread and scumhunting, and generally helping the town, ZONEACE replacement, but you're scumhunting isn't excellent so you have to die now"?! I don't think so. I think he's worried that I'll use it as an excuse to not participate, to not weigh in, while we're waiting on the lurker. I have been involved, so this point is somewhat moot, but that doesn't make it wrong.

The discussion appears to die down, until Dr Pepper says this:

dingoatemybaby: Look at Percy now. He is actively participating while following another lead. Will you now try to paint Percy in such a fashion that he wasnt even close to possibly doing?

to which the reply:

I suggest you go back and reread what I actually said about Percy. I was talking about a specific tactic he said he was going to use. I'm done trying to correct you on this. If you want to talk about what I actually said, fine. I'm not interested in defending misrepresentations of my position.

This is when the debate becomes independent of me and starts being about Pepper and dingo. Dr Pepper is trying to say that dingo's original attack was designed to paint me in a bad light - I disagree, as I think it was more a "watch out he could be trying to get away with being scummy" kind of post. I remember feeling very uncomfortable when Pepper brought it up again, but that may be just because I hate it when other people step in to fight for me.

@dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too. Percy currently has a perfectly legitamate stance and unless it was reset, he is still voting ZONEACE/tubby while contributing and starting more discussion. You are being misleading and completely paranoid with outrageous accusations.

FoS dingo

I think it was perfectly reasonable for dingo to bring it up in the first place, especially if he's used the tactic in another game to be better scum. Sure, I haven't used it in that way, but I don't think he was trying to make me seem scummy.

That said, I think dingo is unwilling to concede any of the points that Dr Pepper has been making. Pepper's been arguing about my playstyle, whilst dingo has been arguing meta, and neither seem willing to concede each other's points, like so:

dingo: I agree that Percy isn't using the tactic in the scummy way that I foresaw. Still, that doesn't make pointing it out not scummy.
Dr Pepper: I agree that Percy could have used that tactic in a scummy way. Still, he hasn't, so why are you continuing to talk about it?

The fact that they weren't conceding those first sentences seemed to anger the other party. At this point in my re-read, I'm leaning dingo to be the 'more town' player. He hasn't made misrepresentation errors the way Pepper has, stuck to his meta argument and defended it adequately. Dr Pepper has been defending me via in-game reasons when dingo is talking more abstract - Yosarian was talking about the meta, and made good points. That is, he is possibly trying to make dingo's words into something they're not.

Pledging not to vote for anyone else, no matter how scummy those people might be is NOT good play.

Is there a scummier person here right now? Because I dont hear you doing very much scum hunting.

Hmm. This is the same thing that's been going on since the beginning - dingo talking meta, and Dr Pepper missing the point. I understand that it's important to keep people focussed on scumhunting, but I thought this was a little too opportunistic. Like a "gotcha!" moment.

Again:

dingo keeps pushing for Percy to change the vote style only because someone might be scumiier. I have repeatedly asked dingo to provide a better target and he hasnt. dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason. I find these actions of his to be either misleading or paranoid.

I think this is a trap. If dingo scumhunts and says "Percy should vote for this guy", then that's dingo controlling my vote. If dingo doesn't say "Percy should vote for this guy", he's *still* controlling my vote by telling me to move it off ZONEACE.
The point is, it doesn't matter whether there's a better target or not. The argument comes down to whether I'm prepared to move my vote, not whether there's a good target for me to move it to.

And there it is again. I have not once asked Percy to change his vote.

OK, one question. Why criticize him for his statement then?

This is it in a nutshell. Dr Pepper continues to insist that, even though dingo never said "Percy should change his vote", that was the only good reason he would have brought it up in the first place. This is false, as several players have already mentioned.

Percy stated to keep his vote on ZONEACE. dingo didnt like this statement and criticized him for it. The only logical reason to make a statement is to affect change. dingo further backs up the criticism by saying Percy might be voting ZONEACE to 'avoid commiting to an actual lynch'. I respond with if Percy avoids commting then criticism may be warranted, but until then Percy has solid ground to stand on. Now dingo is back peddaling.

Notice here that Dr Pepper and dingo might be able to actually *agree* here. Dr Pepper thinks it's good for me to have my vote on ZONEACE/tubby. dingo is worried that I may keep my vote on ZONEACE/tubby when someone else pops up who is more scummy. These positions are

not mutually exclusive

.

Frankly, I'm starting to think you're scum at this point, possibly with Zoneace; you didn't want Percy to keep his vote on Zoneace indefinatly, but you are now trying to deny that that was your position and actually are attacking Dr. Pepper just for saying that. The only logical reason I can think of for that is if you were trying to protect Zoneace, but didn't want anyone to notice you were protecting him.

He wasn't trying to deny that. He didn't want me to keep my vote on ZONEACE indefinitely

regardless of how the game develops

. This is very different, and that qualification has been made clear to me by reading dingo's posts, and he's made the point more than once.

Now dingo starts calling Dr Pepper a liar for continuing to miss this particularly important point.

any reasonable person could read your post and see it as kind of a sideways way to try to discourage Percy from keeping his vote on Zoneace. You could have just defended your position or whatever and I would have been ok with it, but instead you responded with a massive over-reaction; you accused Dr Pepper of lying and of misrepresenting you, voted him, and have been attacking him since then. The degree of your response seems completly out of propotion to a rather rational and logical post by Dr Pepper, who didn't even FOS you in his initial post, and it makes me think that you may be hiding something, or that your motives may not be what you're saying they are.

Now, the first sentence is worth considering, but after dingo's repeated clarifications in game I can't see how this read might still stand. dingo started off polite, and it got worse when Dr Pepper continued to not see the point. I think the rest of the post gives far more weight to dingo's role in the developing argument than is warranted.

Since you are refusing to acknowledge that I have a point, I am going to assume dingo is either scum or stupid. I quoted you several times to back up my arguement and instead you just ignore me.

This is the argument from both of them, but at this point I'm still leaning dingo as the player with the more consistent, sensible position.

C) Percy is using a scum tactic

He never actually says C, but the implication is there. And given how much he is back peddaling I think I found something useful. If dingo had said, well thats one interpretation but not what I meant, then I would have moved on. Instead he calls me a liar and accuses me of misrepresenting him. dingo, at least three other players see my point. Just acknowledge it exists and is reasonable.

I think dingo was arguing all along that I was using a scum tactic, as I said before. His posts just don't make sense otherwise. Pointing this out is again off-topic and inconsistent with his other lines of attack against dingo.

End this pointless debate, my brethren, and concentrate on lynching the evil ones...

This jacks up the possibility of one of them being scum. I've been suspicious of zwet for many reasons I've already stated, and this seems like an attempt to give either of those locked in the argument a good "out", even if it is later in the day. It's characterising the whole debate as "something you shouldn't bother reading". This leaves it at "dingo and Pepper were fighting". Under this scenario, the most likely role distribution is zwet is scum with Pepper, and dingo is their victim.

I attempt to clarify the situation after Pepper poorly summarizes it, and dingo also takes objection to this summary, defends himself and challenges Pepper to answer the questions put to him.

Yosarian votes for dingo, without stating reasons, but eventually clarify that it's because dingo is using the word "liar" a lot when he doesn't think Pepper has been lying.

dingo agrees with my analysis, but highlights that the argument I presented was not as the strong as the one he presented, and after the re-read I have to agree. Furthermore, he says that Pepper looks like a liar on a complete re-read, and again I have to agree. Dr Pepper continues to use wrong assumptions and characterize dingo in the worst light possible, and he doesn't have enough evidence to do so.

What if he doesn't provide "excellent scum hunting" and only acts like an average townie? Tubby may not be capable of excellent play. What if someone else appears extremely scummy? Would you still prefer to pressure someone providing average scum hunting over someone who shows them self to almost certainly be scum? Would you argue others should follow your lead?

Here is my point. Your stated strategy is not sound under many plausible situations. Whether you are scummy can't be determined until or unless those situations arise.

I understand your concern, but my pressure vote is intended to get him to participate in the best way possible. I understand tubby's replacement may indeed be retarded and fill the game with anti-town crap. He may indeed just be average, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. However, I don't want to lynch anyone else until we've heard from this player (because allowing a player to get away with no posts for two days is fucking outrageous), and I want the player to feel under pressure to play his best.

And dingo's follow up statement about me mis-reping his stance, well what do you think of Percy now that Percy is staying the course with the stated strategy? Is Percy scum or town for not moving his vote until tubby/ZONEACE comes up with some excellent scum hunting?

This seems like a great way to avoid dingo's question and to continue to misrepresent what he was initially saying.

MikeSC6 attempts to downplay the situation, admits to not having read it and then tells us to go watch some cats instead. This further compounds my impression that one of the players involved in this debate are scum, and the scum are preparing their exit strategy just in case it goes bad.

In conclusion, I think dingo pointed out something sensible, and Dr Pepper has mischaracterized that statement in every way possible to try and turn it into something it's not. When a frustrated dingo defends himself, that too is spun into a scumtell. Now Dr Pepper is going to try his hardest to get dingo killed, and I think this is so over-the-top as to be another scumtell in and of itself. There could have been avenues to dismiss this argument as two townies butting heads, but the fact that it's gone on so long really doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. I also find zwet and Mike's attitudes scummy, and suggest they re-read the thread properly, ffs.

HoS: Dr Pepper
FoS: zwetschenwasser
FoS: MikeSC6

[MikeSC6]

MikeSC6 attempts to downplay the situation, admits to not having read it and then tells us to go watch some cats instead. This further compounds my impression that one of the players involved in this debate are scum, and the scum are preparing their exit strategy just in case it goes bad.

I wasn't even in this debate, and I'd have thought it quite clear that the cat thing wasn't a proposition to stop the game- more to calm people down since it had turned into personal attacks. It wasn't "cats instead of the discussion"- it was "cats in augmentation to the discussion" . It was just a way to indicate that, in my view, the debate had quickly turned from logical questioning to emotional attacking, the evidence ran out after the first couple of posts in this discussion, ad hominems have since taken the place where evidence should be.

And I haven't read this particular discussion all the way through yet- though I certainly will when I have time like I said- because it turned into the same thing over and over again in increasingly long winded and nasty ways. I doubt that many of the players who aren't emotionally invested in this particular discussion have read it through completely yet either.

[Yosarian2]

any reasonable person could read your post and see it as kind of a sideways way to try to discourage Percy from keeping his vote on Zoneace. You could have just defended your position or whatever and I would have been ok with it, but instead you responded with a massive over-reaction; you accused Dr Pepper of lying and of misrepresenting you, voted him, and have been attacking him since then. The degree of your response seems completly out of propotion to a rather rational and logical post by Dr Pepper, who didn't even FOS you in his initial post, and it makes me think that you may be hiding something, or that your motives may not be what you're saying they are.

Now, the first sentence is worth considering, but after dingo's repeated clarifications in game I can't see how this read might still stand. dingo started off polite, and it got worse when Dr Pepper continued to not see the point.

The thing is, the clarifications are what make me suspicious. It's not just that he didn't want you to keep your vote on Zoneace indefinatly, it's that he didn't seem want to ADMIT that that's what he was doing, that set off my alarm bells.

When one scum is defending a scumbudy, they usually want to try to somehow discourage other people to vote for him (or to keep their vote on him, or whatever), but they don't want to LOOK like they're defending their buddy; in fact, if asked, they'll usually deny that that's what they're trying to do. And that's kind of the vibe I was getting from dingo's "clarifications".

[Dr Pepper]

I am going to take a shower before heading out. I have many responses to everything going on because it just went from fustrating to extremely interesting in my opinion. I see many scummy opportunities from many players and will elaborate tomorrow afternoon (roughly 24 hours from now).

I do have one request though. dingo, if you have the time, please repost the question that you think I have not answered.

[Dr Pepper]

EBWODP: I mean dingo, if you have the time, please repost the question(s) that you think I have not answered (properly).

[dingoatemybaby]

The thing is, the clarifications are what make me suspicious. It's not just that he didn't want you to keep your vote on Zoneace indefinatly, it's that he didn't seem want to ADMIT that that's what he was doing, that set off my alarm bells.

I'm not even sure that we are close to being on the same page here. From your phrasing I think you believe that I necessarily want Percy to change his vote at some point. That is not true at all. I want him to expand the conditions under which he would change his vote. Whether he ever should or not depends on how the game unfolds.

It may turn out to be perfectly reasonable for Percy to keep his vote on Tubby's replacement. It may turn out to be unreasonable. I'm just saying that it is too limiting to say the ONLY condition which would cause a vote change is "excellent scumhunting" from Zoneace/Tubby/Whoever.

This is not backtracking. This is not distancing myself from my own words. This is what I have said from the beginning.

[dingoatemybaby]

Sidenote: dingo, are you more inclined to believe ZONEACE/tubby to be scum now, given the above quote and his replacement-then-lurk?

I'm going to distinguish between lurkers and flakers. People who are playing but not posting are lurkers. That is definitely scummy. People who sign up but don't play are flakers, and I don't think there is anyway to determine how scummy they are. Both Zone and Tubby seem to be flakers. Zone just vanished and tubby asked to be replaced.

So my view of Zone/Tubby is neutral right now. There are some people I feel are probably town. There are some I'm getting a scummy vibe from. I don't know anyway to judge Zone/Tubby. I do think it is reasonable to demand participation from whoever takes over before the day is done. Would I vote to lynch a role because a series of players who held it didn't bother to play? Only if there were no better targets. Right now I'd lynch Pepper, Zwet, and Muffasa before Zone.

[MikeSC6]

First off, I note that Mufasa still hasn't addressed any of the points made weeks ago. I think he's scum, this eclipse of a discussion must be a godsend.

Anyway-

Percy: Post 612

Key quote:

“ZONEACE promised a post on Wednesday. I am going to Vote: ZONEACE until he comes up with some f*****g excellent scumhunting.”

What I think: I didn’t think anything of this when it first appeared. It just looked like exasperation with a lurker to me, there’s nothing there that supports the idea that Percy would neglect the rest of the game, especially with the bulk of this post being directed elsewhere.

Dingo: Post 617

Key quote:

“In your experience, does this kind of vote actually get lurkers to post? Would you support pushing up the vote count on him and eventually lynching if he doesn't provide "excellent scumhunting"?”

What I think: A completely fair post in my view, and I would agree with it- if a lurker isn’t bothered enough to post for a whole game day, they’re plainly not bothered about playing the game.

Percy: Post 618

Key quote:

“If he doesn't get replaced and starts actively participating, then I won't want him to be lynched. For the moment, I just can't see how anyone would be OK with a player skipping all of the first day and then posting only to defend themselves. Lurkers (especially ones like this) should be lynched as scum.”

What I think: Again, fair enough- voting based on conditions, acknowledging that these conditions are liable to change. Also asks a separate question of Zwet in this post, so he’s clearly not using this as an excuse not to play the game.

Barrylocke: Post 623

Key quote:

“Concerning Lurkers, I think since theirs plenty of time, if he's gone from the whole site, it might be better to see if he gets prodded and replaced. Of course, I know players can let mods know that they're lurking on purpose, so if he is, he probably wont be replaced. But I still feel calls for prods should happen before lynchs.”

What I think: Fair enough, the issue is sorted calmly and rationally....

Dingo: Post 638

Key quote:

“I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.”

What I think: Here is where it starts to turn into the monster it is now- though I don’t think this comment is intentionally misleading or anything. I think it’s mistaken- Percy had been participating in all the discussions going between his vote and this comment, but it was certainly something to watch out for. It would have been better if this idea was kept private, and brought out if Percy did end up abstaining from discussion.

Dr Pepper: Post 639

Key quotes:

“Glad to see Percy is flushing out the lurkers while still contributing. He seems townie for the time.”

“dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.”

What I think: I completely agree here- Percy had been spending more time on other discussions than on the whole lurker thing.

Dingo: Post 640

Key quote:

“I just don't like the declaration that his vote will stay on Zoneface until Zoneface starts playing in some "excellent" way. I didn't say that Percy was not contributing.”

What I think: I don’t agree with the first sentence there- but I can see how that interpretation can come from Percy’s post 612. I agree with the second sentence- Dingo didn’t say that, though again I can see how Dr Pepper got that from post 638. And I can also see that battle lines are starting to be drawn in the first sentence there, Dingo seems to be digging in and becoming more sure of his hypothetical situation than before, but only because it’s been challenged, not because of any new evidence that would support it.

Thus far, it seems like a misunderstanding. Dingo was suspicious of Percy because of something Percy might have done in the future, Dr Pepper sees that what Dingo was worried about hadn’t happened yet. It is arguing over a hypothetical, that, even it was going to happen, won’t happen because it’s being argued about.

Dr Pepper: Post 641

Key quote:

“It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.”

What I think: The rest of the post doesn’t need to be quoted I don’t think- it seems to me, apart from this little bit which I have something to say about, that this post is the towniest in the discussion so far. Dr Pepper doesn’t give the same kind of “battles lines drawn” vibe that was hinted at in Dingo’s last post- and while I disagree with the idea that the vote will put pressure on ZONEACE to contribute (on this I agree with Dingo, who has since been proven correct.), I don’t think it’s particularly scummy to take that line.

The bit I did quote demonstrates exactly why it’s fruitless to argue about hypotheticals. We can see that Dingo hasn’t asked Percy to change his vote, only that he should be willing in the future to do so rather than hiding behind that vote. Which is a mistaken opinion in its self, though an understandable one. But having said that, I can see where Dr Pepper’s coming from- if Dingo is unhappy with Percy’s vote, he should give reasons for changing it. But from Dingos posts, we can see that he’s not unhappy with the vote per se, though like myself he questions its usefulness as an anti-lurker/flaker tactic- he’s unhappy with what it could have lead to.

It just seems like a misunderstanding so far. Looking at the last few posts on this page, this where things break down. Should I keep posting in this format? Does anyone else want to take over and give their interpretation? Does anyone think I've misinterpreted their position so far?

[dingoatemybaby]

I do have one request though. dingo, if you have the time, please repost the question that you think I have not answered.

In all honestly, I really have no desire to get sucked back into this thing you do. If you had answers to the questions put to you, you would not have ignored those questions. This is the pattern of our converstaion.

I say something.
You ignore what I say and make up a false position for me.
I quote my real words back to you.
You ignore my real words and make your false claim again.
I quote my real words back to you.
You ignore my real words and make your false claim again.

And on and on. I see what you are doing here. People are analyzing what happened, and you want to disrupt it. If you want to answer the questions you have ignored, go ahead and answer them. But there is no way I am going to spend an hour re-reading the conversation and collecting quotes only to have to ignore or misrepresent them so you can get me posting the questions back at you over and over again to try and show you are not dealing with them honestly.

[Mufasa]

I believe I answered all pending questions on me if you'd like to point out the ones I missed then I will answer them but I believe I answered all of them to my capability.

[Dr Pepper]

Long post, with hopefully less ad hom. Sorry guys but this Pepper/dingo situation is not going away until it gets resolved.

@Mike: Your posting format is fine.

Also, major footnote before the Pepper/dingo discussion continues. Mufasa will not get away with lurking and ignoring questions. The longer Mufasa waits to get active, the harder it will be to for Mufasa to deny lurking and intentionally ignoring questions.

I think Mike hit the nail on the head with his analysis. dingo makes a comment which I interpretted as an accusation. Namely this one.

I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.

And Mike sums up my idea pretty well here.

It would have been better if this idea was kept private, and brought out if Percy did end up abstaining from discussion.

If dingo is not making an accusation and instead discussing a hypothetical situation before it occurs (and may not ever occur), then dingo's post is not content, it is just fluff disguised as content.

At first I saw dingo making a thinly vieled attack against Percy. If it was not something to be investigated, then it was just a distraction. Multiple players stated Percy's voting stlye to be not worth mentioning at the moment it was brought up.

Also I would like to address this,

Originally I thought the way Dr. Pepper investigated the original dingo post using inference was a pro-town move but upon re-looking at how they have continued the discussion I am not so sure that Dr. Pepper is tunnel-visioned on the conclusion drawn from that inference.

I have to plead guilty (although I dont think it was that bad) to this for two reasons.

1) The tunnel vision thing occured mostly because dingo did not acknowledge the inference from the post 638 existed. dingo went to instead correct me with some sort of superiority complex. After repeating and reinforcing myself we arrive to part two.

2) dingo calls me a liar. Now not only has dingo thrown the guantlet, but dingo now declares full out war on Dr Pepper.

Now I am going to make thing real simple, either

A) dingo is telling the truth and and Dr Pepper is lying. In this situation Dr Pepper should be the lynch for today.

B) Dr Pepper is not lying. If Dr P isnt lying, then dingo must be lying about how Dr P is lying. In this situation dingo should be the lynch for today.

I just have a very hard time seeing it any other way. Once the word "liar" was thrown out not once but repeatedly by dingo, it was a personal attack and full out attempt at lynching Dr Peper. I am way past the point of accepting the two townies butting heads theory. I think the lynch for today should be either dingo or Dr Pepper.

But thats not all folks. Percy' super post worries me because it has both great and awful points.

End this pointless debate, my brethren, and concentrate on lynching the evil ones...

This jacks up the possibility of one of them being scum. I've been suspicious of zwet for many reasons I've already stated, and this seems like an attempt to give either of those locked in the argument a good "out", even if it is later in the day. It's characterising the whole debate as "something you shouldn't bother reading".

There could have been avenues to dismiss this argument as two townies butting heads, but the fact that it's gone on so long really doesn't lend itself to that interpretation.

I agree with these two quotes listed above.

This is it in a nutshell. Dr Pepper continues to insist that, even though dingo never said "Percy should change his vote", that was the only good reason he would have brought it up in the first place. This is false, as several players have already mentioned.

That is pretty close to the whole arguement in a nut shell. If you take away the whole implication that Percy should be moving his vote, then dingo's post becomes fluff discussing a hypothetical situation before it occurs.

I think dingo was arguing all along that I was using a scum tactic, as I said before. His posts just don't make sense otherwise. Pointing this out is again off-topic and inconsistent with his other lines of attack against dingo.

I keep bringing this point up because it is very relevant. Especially since dingo says things like this a lot.

And while dingo may have had one thing in mind while typing his intial concerns, it is very easy (and reasonable) to read it another way. And dingo's follow up statement about me mis-reping his stance, well what do you think of Percy now that Percy is staying the course with the stated strategy? Is Percy scum or town for not moving his vote until tubby/ZONEACE comes up with some excellent scum hunting? Becuase your earlier statement of players who dont move their vote regardless of what else is going on strongly implies that dingo thinks they would be scum for doing it.

Your inability to speak the truth never fails to amaze. No, I do not think that Percy's decision to keep his vote on Tubby through the day thus far is scummy.

So what I get outta these two quotes is

1) Percy thinks that dingo thinks Percy is being scummy
2) dingo doesn't think Percy is being scummy

That worries me especially since Percy is now Fosing me. Compounded by the fact that it is an Fos instead of a vote because the hypothetical situation dingo implies may now actually be occuring. Percy, if you find me scummy, then vote me. There will be plenty of time to vote ZONE/tubby replacement when they arrive.

Oh, one more thing since I just saw dingo most recent post. How does this

@Pepper - If I compiled a list of questions that have been posted to you that you have chosen not to answer, would that increase the likelyhood you would respond to them?

become this

If you want to answer the questions you have ignored, go ahead and answer them. But there is no way I am going to spend an hour re-reading the conversation and collecting quotes only to have to ignore or misrepresent them so you can get me posting the questions back at you over and over again to try and show you are not dealing with them honestly.

dingo's still being pretty hostile in my opinion. One of us should be lynched today between dingo and Dr Pepper. I think it should be dingo.

[zwetschenwasser]

Aha! The third person reference psychological scumtell in all its splendor!

Unvote; Vote: Dr. Pepper

[dingoatemybaby]

I just have a very hard time seeing it any other way. Once the word "liar" was thrown out not once but repeatedly by dingo, it was a personal attack and full out attempt at lynching Dr Peper.

There was nothing personal about it. I don't think your lies in this game make you a liar in real life. Scum in this game are expected to lie.

Oh, one more thing since I just saw dingo most recent post. How does this

@Pepper - If I compiled a list of questions that have been posted to you that you have chosen not to answer, would that increase the likelyhood you would respond to them?

become this

If you want to answer the questions you have ignored, go ahead and answer them. But there is no way I am going to spend an hour re-reading the conversation and collecting quotes only to have to ignore or misrepresent them so you can get me posting the questions back at you over and over again to try and show you are not dealing with them honestly.

dingo's still being pretty hostile in my opinion. One of us should be lynched today between dingo and Dr Pepper. I think it should be dingo.

I thought better of it and decided there was no way you had any intention of answering my questions. I mean, you read me mocking you after I ask you questions because I predict you won't answer them. And you don't. But then you ask me to post them again? If you had any intention of answering them, why don't you just answer them? Do you not know how to go back to posts you have read before? And if you can't remember what happened in previous posts, how can you possibly scum hunt?

Here, I'll give you just one to see what you do.

And maybe you can explain how you interpret this

I'm not asking him to change his vote.

to this

dingo is trying to get a vote changed without providing a solid reason.

Not that I expect you to even try to explain. You are so tied up in your web of lies that you can't answer even the most basic questions put to you.

Look familiar?

[zwetschenwasser]

Dingo = good

[Mufasa]

Constantly avoiding me Dr Pepper you post right after me and dont even respond, and you expect me to answer a question.. jeesh

[Jahudo]

I think dingo was arguing all along that I was using a scum tactic, as I said before. His posts just don't make sense otherwise. Pointing this out is again off-topic and inconsistent with his other lines of attack against dingo.

Do you think Pepper was lying and misrepresenting dingo on this issue?

The tunnel vision thing occured mostly because dingo did not acknowledge the inference from the post 638 existed. dingo went to instead correct me with some sort of superiority complex. After repeating and reinforcing myself we arrive to part two.

Maybe the inference is wrong. It's impossible to say.

A) dingo is telling the truth and and Dr Pepper is lying. In this situation Dr Pepper should be the lynch for today.

You did misrepresent dingo by saying explicitly that dingo was trying to get Percy to change his vote.

OK, one question. Why criticize him for his statement then?

You can see that Pepper's base assumption is incorrect, and you give him the benifit of the doubt, assuming he meant something other than what he said. But he consistently makes that same incorrect base assumption. THAT is why I call him a liar.

The base assumption is "criticize" yes? But weren't you technically judging the merits of Percy's decision to vote for a lurker? You don't have to judge with suspicion or condemnation. Are you saying you were completely devoid of judgment on what Percy did?

When one scum is defending a scumbudy, they usually want to try to somehow discourage other people to vote for him (or to keep their vote on him, or whatever), but they don't want to LOOK like they're defending their buddy; in fact, if asked, they'll usually deny that that's what they're trying to do. And that's kind of the vibe I was getting from dingo's "clarifications".

Who is the scumbuddy in this case? Zoneace?

[dingoatemybaby]

The base assumption is "criticize" yes? But weren't you technically judging the merits of Percy's decision to vote for a lurker? You don't have to judge with suspicion or condemnation. Are you saying you were completely devoid of judgment on what Percy did?

I'm not sure I understand your question exactly. If this does not answer it, let me know.

My judgment of the vote was this. Pressuring a lurker is a good idea. I'd even say it that if you have no where else to place your vote, placing it on a lurker is a fine thing to do with it. I also said I didn't think it would amount to much if Zone was a flaker instead of a lurker and that prodding was probably more useful than voting. So Percy's actual vote did not make me think Percy was scummy.

[Jahudo]

Dang I actually messed up that quote, but yeah I see that you've remained consistent on what has been meant. There is reasonable room in your original posts for this meaning too, which doesn't now look like a judgment of persuasion or suspicion. It possibly could have turned into that if Percy continued to do things that, in your history, were scum tells like avoiding a real contribution and keeping the vote on the lurker indefinitely.

If we have to decide between dingo and pepper today I'm leaning towards voting pepper.

[Haschel Cedricson]

kaiberanr eplaces ONEACE/tubby 216 3ffective inmediately.

bVote count tomorrowww.

[MikeSC6]

Welcome Kaiberan!

Mufasa: I'll sum up what I think has gone either unanswered or that I don't believe on day 2. I still don't get the self-vote on day 1, though. Anyway-

First, this post-

I'm not believing that one haha so reviewing day one the most likely person to lynch is Battle Mage for his contribution is so great that he needs to be lynched on the simple matter that he has a good con voyage.

With con voyage meaning "conveying". People asked for explanations for this post right after it was posted, yet you posted several times before explaining it (unconvincingly, in my view.)

You later said that in this post you meant Battle Mage hadn't been consistent in his activity, and that that this was a scumtell you'd seen in "various games". When asked, you said said that it was only one game and that it was ongoing so we couldn't discuss it or be linked to it, effectively dead-ending this line of discussion. What about the rest of these various games?

Then later you said that you weren't trying to call for his lynch, and that you were just throwing a name out, contradicting the idea that you thought he was scum because of his inconsistent activity. "Most likely person to be lynched" and "needs to be lynched" however, don't support this. Which is true- did you think he was scum, or were you just throwing a name out to discuss?

Also- the mayor thing. You voted him for mayor, and kept that vote on (saying that you didn't need to take your vote away.) You also said that soon after your vote you started to have suspicions and didn't think him a good choice for mayor. However later on day 1 you included him in your "three people you wouln't mind being mayor," describing them as the "three likeliest to be town." If you really started to have honest suspicions about Battle Mage on day 1, why wait until day 2 when he's not there to voice them?

And did he really go from "likeliest to be town" to "needs to be lynched" because he didn't post quite as much later on than at the beginning of the day?

As well, the fact that Battle Mage can't post today. It was explained why early on this day. The next time it came up, you helped to explain it to someone else. Then later you used Battle Mages inactivity on day 2 to back up your opinion of him as scum. I don't buy that it was just confusion, though I guess there's nothing much to ask about that.

While I'm here, it'd be nice to ask a few new questions-

What is your opinion of this other discussion that's going on? Do you have any opinion as to who could be scum? What do you think of Zwets sometimes zealous defense of yourself?

I'm sure I've missed some other issues, but I can't think of what they'd be.

[Firestarter]

Mod

Ill be V/LA for the next week.

[zwetschenwasser]

Constantly avoiding me Dr Pepper you post right after me and dont even respond, and you expect me to answer a question.. jeesh

Do you have anything useful to comment on?

[Mufasa]

@ Mike I really have nothing to say about BM if you want to lynch me for that than go right ahead.

Zwet has played with me before and knows that I post spontaneously. So, he knows that its my gameplay not scumtells.

Day one I said it and day two i will say it again I'm not afraid of a lynch

[dingoatemybaby]

@ Mike I really have nothing to say about BM if you want to lynch me for that than go right ahead.

This one really confuses me. You say we need to lynch BM, but you can't explain why and don't want to talk about it? Or am I not remembering some explantion?