Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[Idiotking]

as it shows, in my eyes, Ik's transition from someone who is voting me for honest reasons to someone who is making it up as he goes along. I've never said anyone was suspicious directly because they suspected me. Ik has been putting in a serious effort into assuming things about me,

Making it up as I go along? Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.

After that begin to bat around some arguments with DTM and a few others, which was fine. But then when I get into the fray you question my intentions for pressuring you. Again, defensive, since you questioned my intentions when I tried pushing the case farther than anyone else had (that's what pressure is

for

, to see your reactions to stiff resistance/argumentation).

Shortly thereafter you vote for me in a manner which I still consider OMGUS, and as paradoxombie pointed out, it would be strange for my vote against you to not be a part of the reason (since your problem with my case was based on your lack of faith in my intentions).

This progression of events indicates to me that you did indeed suspect me for suspecting you, and as such resulted in an OMGUS vote. I am hardly making this up as I go along.

As to your statement that you didn't directly state that, no, you didn't. It would be suicide for you to do so. Yet the above progression of events indicates as much to me, not to mention the subtle hints throughout your posts. I ask you: What is the difference between questioning my 'intentions' and questioning my suspicion of you? If you vote for me because of my intentions, does that not mean that you also vote for me because of my suspicion?

Next you

Though [RC] didn't say it specifically, it sounds almost like the next line would read 'how DARE you for saying my vote was random!' I just get this feeling of extreme anger from it.

and I get the feeling that the reason he wants to frame me as "defensive" or "pushy" is so that he can segue into the label of attacking players for suspecting me. This is not the case, and Ik knows this is not the case.

That was just the read I got from your statement, and I still hold to that. Also, you're assuming I'm trying to 'frame' you as defensive. This is the read I'm getting from you and it's what I've chosen to act on.

I've had calm, level-headed exchanges with Toro, DTM, Shrine, and DRK. At no point have I said any of these players are suspect because of their concerns with me. I gave Ik the opportunity to show this, and he has yet to do so.

I was willing to push the case this far, and am willing to go farther because I believe in it. The others stopped, or at least slowed down, whereas I chose to pressure you. This is what I think you couldn't handle, and as such, we have our little chain of events leading to an OMGUS vote.

And you know, part of the reason I think it was an OMGUS vote is because of the same reason I think your original vote was a random one: no explanation. It took a long time to get an explanation for that original vote, and it took this long to get this post I'm replying to. I've seen this before, I've done it before, and it usually means you couldn't come up with a good excuse at first and had to go back and do your homework to come up with some form of case. Which means, you wouldn't have the case already built up in your mind, which means the vote would be OMGUS.

I can take pretty much everything else Ik says and does in stride. I have no problem with his vote, nor do I have a problem with him calling me a lying scumbag. These things are all part of the game. This is why my vote is not OMGUS.

You've failed to sway me.

Logical Fallacy

Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?

Logical fallacies are sometimes a good way of spotting scum. In this post, Ik attempts to push DRK into calling me the best townie of all-time or a defensive, lying mafia.

In Ik's world, there is no gray. There is no such thing as a neutral read. There is no such thing as a slightly town or slightly scum read. You are either the worst scum on Earth, or the best townie there ever was,

There is indeed a slightly town or slightly scum read. But the fact remains that it's a town or a scum read. As I told DRK, I was exaggerating by pushing the alignment reads to their extremes. At the very heart of that question was,

given the information available, do you think RC is town or scum?

The response was town, btw. And I'm waiting for you to tell me where the logical fallacy is. Either you're town or you're not.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

You are either sided with Ik, or you aren't. You either go all-in, or you don't play the game.

Misrepresentation. God, that word's becoming overused in this discussion.

Do you deny that there are players that are townies, and players that are not townies? If you're a townie, good. If you're not a townie, you're what the town hunts. Seriously, I wonder where you think you're going with this.

Then, before I respond, before having gained

any

new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.

More exaggeration, more division. DRK criticizes an aspect of Ik's post, and apparently that is equal to calling Ik "scummy McScum".

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

This is bullshit and you know it, RC.

Ik has a persistant problem with using his vote. I am the only player he's seriously voted so far, despite him making these statements,

I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote.

Ik saw a problem with the bandwagon on jason early in the game. He made it clear he was going to pursue this wagon. He never did, and his reason for not doing so was because he had to answer questions directed at him.

That wasn't the only reason, nor is it my only stated one.

1. I was being pressured to answer questions, yes.
2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.
3. I don't pressure vote that early in the game.

Only one of which you state, most of which you ignored, all of which were brought up in my discussion with ryan. Honestly, are you only selectively reading what you WANT to read?

Toro, according to Ik, "explodes in scummyness" at one point in the game. He never really pursues Toro though, not with a vote and not with any serious lines of questioning.

God, what the hell? THAT WAS TO HIPHOP, NOT TORO. NOBODY ELSE HAS MADE THIS 'MISTAKE', AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTOOD WHO I WAS TALKING TO. FOR GOD'S SAKE, RC!!!!

-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A

By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?

I like this idea, Ik. I think I will try it myself. I'll vote dank discretely and see what happens. You see, town expects "A" to happen (me tell them why I am voting dank), but I'll make "B" happen instead (leave my vote there without any reasons and see what develops).

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.

You're right, Ik. Town was surprised that I voted dank without giving a reason why. I used your strategy to scumhunt, what do you think?

The difference is, your B is actually scummy, whereas mine was not. You fail at using my own logic against me. Random voting post-RVS is scummy. Unvoting in preparation of examining a bandwagon you weren't on is NOT scummy. See what I did there? I shot your argument down because you tried using MY argument, and I know my argument's nuances. Better luck next time.

Also, I still think it was a purely random vote. And I think you have been lying about it ever since. Two scummy acts do not make a right, RC.

Ik is allowed to use subtlety and create situations where he surprises the town, but when I use the same tactics, he calls me lying scum, making a needless, anti-town gamble.

I wasn't trying to make a gamble. I was just doing what comes naturally to me. You? You were trying a gamble. You were trying to gauge people's reactions, yes? Me? I was unvoting because I thought the RVS quite over. No subtlety, no hidden intentions. No lies.

Ik has picked up an added habit of expecting others to convince him he is wrong.

Do you try to convince yourself that you're wrong?

Ik isn't interested in looking beyond the conclusion that I am definitely scum, that my vote was definitely random. It's our obligation to do it for him.

No, I'm not interested in looking beyond the conclusion that your original vote was definitely random. However I have seriously considered the possibility that you aren't scum. It took you lying to me to make me vote for you, and things just steadily got worse from there. Misrepresentation and exaggeration.

If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.

It's going so far as he is making the borderline appeal here for death. He wants to be lynched to "prove" himself right. If he dies as a townie, then that means I have to be scum?

No, but it DOES means your 'doubts' about my 'intentions' are shot to hell. Currently people are wary of me because they think I could be scum trying to tack an impossible case on someone who isn't scum at all. I'm willing to die to prove otherwise. Validation. Not to mention, I think you could still do with more pressure, more than one person (me) can bestow.

Either it's a serious scum gambit, or, what's really causing me stress, a prideful townie move.

Prideful, or earnest?

What makes it worse though, is he's spreading guilt onto DRK, Paradox, and hiphop for "siding with me" against him. It's obvious in DRK and hiphop's case,

Wonderful how you slip Paradoxombie's name in there when I've indicated no suspicion of him. Coincidentally, I've got a very townie read from Paradox. I just disagree with some ideas as to how things should work in the game, not this particular game itself. Way to go making baseless claims concerning my opinions.

I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.

but a little more subtle toward Paradox. Ironically, it was my "defensiveness" that caused Ik to blow up.

Boom.

All others who follow are clear, including me

This is a strange quote from earlier on this game. This is something I picked up on my re-read, it shows Ik referring to some early random votes. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by it, could be harmless, but it strikes me as he may or may not know something about "all other who follow" him.

Ok, this one is easy,

and something you should have gotten by reading the preceding posts

. Or hell, the first half of THAT post, even. DTM random voted hiphop. Dank also random voted hiphop. I voted Dank for being the first person to make a second vote on someone. Hiphop voted me, saying it's hypocritical to make a second vote on someone (Dank already had a vote on him) when my reasoning had been the same for voting Dank. I responded that hiphop's argument was flawed, because I had voted Dank for being the FIRST person to make a 2nd vote on someone. Then I said it's ok for others to make second votes on people, because they weren't the first. As such, it wasn't hypocrisy.

Seriously, did you read anything preceding that statement, or did you just ISO read me without context? You still should have deduced as much from the first part of that post, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't try adding it to your case without context.

Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.

This is WIFOM.

Um, no it's not. This isn't a choice, this isn't "would I do this if I were scum? Would I not do this if I were scum? If they knew I'd do this as scum, would I not do this as scum because they know that? If they knew I'd not do this as scum, would I do it as scum because they know that?" and so on. This is, "I'd do this whether I was town or scum. Deal with it."






I was hoping for a better case against me, RC. This wasn't worth the wait.

[Idiotking]

For those who don't like quote wars, a summary:

Misrepresentations, exaggerations, assumptions about my opinions and intentions, blatant lies, half-truths and misdirections.

RC, you Sir have the stuff politicians are made of.

[alexhans]

Those in danger of suppression #10:

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

Idiotking (4)

-

DeathRowKitty, RedCoyote, Paradoxombie, hiphop

jasonT1981 (1)

-

DTMaster

RedCoyote (1)

-

Idiotking

toro (1)

-

don johnson

Not Voting (3)

-

Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981

Happiness with Posting Level:

NEUTRAL

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

-----------------------

Any complains? Did I miss a vote? Are the names spelled correctly? Does my hair look good? Did I screw up a number? Are the colors ok? Am I losing it??!! ARGHH!!!

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

Allow me to say this for at least the third time.

I said I was finding your case less scummy, not you.

I re-read the thread and realized I was wrong and not only was your case scummier than I thought, you were scummier than I thought. My next post after doing my re-read said so. What's so hard to believe about that???

2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.

Is this a....contradiction?! You earlier said we don't have facts until Day 2 when we know alignments.

It's not Day 2!

That means you don't have facts on which to make your case and by your logic, you shouldn't be making one.

[Idiotking]

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

Allow me to say this for at least the third time.

I said I was finding your case less scummy, not you.

I re-read the thread and realized I was wrong and not only was your case scummier than I thought, you were scummier than I thought. My next post after doing my re-read said so. What's so hard to believe about that???

My point is still applicable. My apologies, I was mistaken, but that in no way affects the point I made.

2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.

Is this a....contradiction?! You earlier said we don't have facts until Day 2 when we know alignments.

It's not Day 2!

That means you don't have facts on which to make your case and by your logic, you shouldn't be making one.[/quote]

Absolute facts, concerning alignment and intent. I can't do

nothing

on D1, now can I? However, even D1 was

some

facts.

For example,

FACT: I have made a case against RC, he has responded with a countercase.

FACT: My stated opinion is that RC random voted.

FACT: RC's stated position is that he did not random vote, and his vote had the intent of calling out Dank as well as studying the reactions its lack of explanation entailed.

And so on and so forth. The problem is, due to the fact that we don't know anyone's exact alignment yet, the only facts present are stated opinions and positions, whether they stem from townie belief or not. So in a sense, we're dealing with both fact and subjectivity on D1. We see facts in stated intents, but because we don't know ANYONE's exact alignments save our own, we can't go back on previous facts/arguments/claims and see the truth that lies between them.

It's a messy situation. I hate Day 1.

[Idiotking]

Also, now that RC has posted his case against me, I've got several questions to ask you, DRK.

1. What is your opinion of the case?
2. Barring what you have just stated, what is your opinion of my response to the case?
3. Have those two posts, RC's and mine, affected your opinion in any form?
4. I've been accused of blowing my case against RC out of proportion. Given the fact that RC's complete case against me has now been made, do you believe that he too could have blown the case against me out of proportion?
5. If I am lynched and flip town, what will you do then?



As far as whether I'll be the lynch today or not, it depends on the town, as always. The cases have been made. They will probably not change.

[Zachrulez]

I will be leaving for my trip later today, and will be back on Wednesday.

I expect I will be kicking back from my week off of work at that point though, so posting won't be a priority. But given that I'm already behind in this game, I'll see what I can do about getting a catchup post up.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, now that RC has posted his case against me, I've got several questions to ask you, DRK.

1. What is your opinion of the case?
2. Barring what you have just stated, what is your opinion of my response to the case?
3. Have those two posts, RC's and mine, affected your opinion in any form?
4. I've been accused of blowing my case against RC out of proportion. Given the fact that RC's complete case against me has now been made, do you believe that he too could have blown the case against me out of proportion?
5. If I am lynched and flip town, what will you do then?

1. Not as convincing as the build-up had me anticipating. This doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe you to be scum.
2. I thought your response was....horrible TBH. There are a couple of things you said that I agree with, but I thought your post was almost completely wrong.
3. It's put RC slightly higher on my scumdar (emphasis on "slightly"). Don't expect him to show up on my scum list anytime soon though unless he does something much scummier.
4. There's a big difference between the two cases. You've been harassing RC with walls of text that aim at nitpicking on every little inconsequential detail. I never saw him try to do anything like that to you, especially since a large portion of his last few posts had been refuting irrelevant and incorrect arguments.
5. I'm willing to take the heat for that. I don't foresee this being an issue though.


Let's look back at IK's posts about logic and fact:

My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

Now let's combine these views and apply them to IK's current situation. First thing I notice is that he changed his mind about what constitutes fact between his original post and his explanation (the second post is an explanation of the first). He goes from saying there's almost no fact to saying there's no fact. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. It's not hard to accidentally word something ambiguously or even incorrectly. Under that premise, it's safe to assume that either the explanation post is what he meant or he's lying to get out of trouble. Let's assume for a moment it's the first option and he believes there's no fact Day 1 and therefore no logic.

Then how can he possibly feel so strongly about his RC case if it's "impossible for [him] to make a case without fact?

The way I see this, either IK is playing both sides of the issue or he lied earlier to avoid our suspicion. Either way, VERY scummy.

[Idiotking]

1. Not as convincing as the build-up had me anticipating. This doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe you to be scum.

Fair enough.

2. I thought your response was....horrible TBH. There are a couple of things you said that I agree with, but I thought your post was almost completely wrong.

Howso? Beyond the two statements you posted (one of which I admitted a mistake but still believe the point was made, the other I clarified my ideas concerning facts) I don't know what exactly you find wrong with it. I'd like to know.

3. It's put RC slightly higher on my scumdar (emphasis on "slightly"). Don't expect him to show up on my scum list anytime soon though unless he does something much scummier.

Why is he slightly higher on your scumdar? What about his post did you dislike?

4. There's a big difference between the two cases. You've been harassing RC with walls of text that aim at nitpicking on every little inconsequential detail. I never saw him try to do anything like that to you, especially since a large portion of his last few posts had been refuting irrelevant and incorrect arguments.

Do you believe I am tunneling RC? Do you believe RC is tunneling me? Do you believe you could potentially be tunneling me?

5. I'm willing to take the heat for that. I don't foresee this being an issue though.

Of course you don't. If we were in reverse situations I'd probably feel the same way.

Let's look back at IK's posts about logic and fact:

My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

Now let's combine these views and apply them to IK's current situation. First thing I notice is that he changed his mind about what constitutes fact between his original post and his explanation (the second post is an explanation of the first). He goes from saying there's almost no fact to saying there's no fact. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. It's not hard to accidentally word something ambiguously or even incorrectly. Under that premise, it's safe to assume that either the explanation post is what he meant or he's lying to get out of trouble. Let's assume for a moment it's the first option and he believes there's no fact Day 1 and therefore no logic.

Then how can he possibly feel so strongly about his RC case if it's "impossible for [him] to make a case without fact?

The way I see this, either IK is playing both sides of the issue or he lied earlier to avoid our suspicion. Either way, VERY scummy.

Did you read my most recent response to that? There are two forms of fact at play here, fact of statement and fact of alignment/intent. Fact of statement isn't concrete fact beyond the fact that it was said, and thus it's not really fact. Yet it's all I can go with on D1, and if enough facts of statement are made, I can see a pattern. This pattern isn't fact either, though. I could be horribly wrong about both RC and you. But I trust the evidence that has been presented, and as such, I have to go through with it.

It sure beats the hell out of lurking, and given your reactions to the pressure I've presented, I believe my case is solid.

And as a general statement concerning fact, I think we're just arguing about the argument. Didn't you say that was anti-town, DRK?

[DTMaster]

Sorry DRK I've been getting tons of hours lately so I'll be late in my usual response. Its in the works and saved in my gmail draft :3

But also our mod is getting sadder and sadder on our posting level. We might want to watch out on that.

[Idiotking]

I'd like to hear hiphop's thoughts about this.

In detail. With explanations and reasoning.

Why, you might ask?

He has been online more than he's been posting, I can see him looking in this forum. Meaning he's just watching the thread without giving any input other than "I agree wit dem u is scumzy iK". I want to hear hiphop's view.

[hiphop]

@idk When I am at school, I like to keep the window open, so that I can peek in when the teacher isn’t looking, I don’t have time to make a substantial post.

What do you want to hear my thoughts on? You? Your most recent post? Alignment? First day activity?

My opinion on you is that you are willing to be lynched, just to prove your point. You believe that rc should be lynched, since you believe he lied. With your recent posts it is like you are telling the town, nobody, but rc should be lynched, because he lied. People call me a hypocrite, in this thread, which is calling me a liar. Why didn’t you push on me as much as you have pushed on rc? The only time you have commented to me is when I have made a comment against you. You could have made your case against rc in your first post, as soon as it came to your attention. The idea is to look for scum, not clutter the thread with unimportant information. Make your case and be done with it. Did you believe that you could have changed rc’s mind with all of those quotes? I will tell you one thing people will decide on which side of the case to choose, because you both can’t be scum.

I believe that the idea of day one is to show alignment. If someone with ties is lynched alignment will show more clearly who scum is and who is town, based on support. There is no way to be 100% sure someone is scum, until that person is killed. I saw drk’s top three you, Jason, and me. The person on the bottom of his list(not known) can easily be scum, so obviously this is just who he thinks is scummy. As an example of alignment, with the recent argument, I can clearly say that if you are scum, I doubt that drk and rc are scum as well, unless you are a Sk. If you want to know who are the top three of my list:
1. Idk
2. Drk, the only reason he is not 1 is because you believe that anti-town is scum, while he doesn’t. Otherwise you both would be at the top.
3. Jason, still hasn’t given his opinion on who he thinks is scum on the bw.
I gave my three who are yours?

Even scum can make a solid case nothing on day one is foolproof. Nobody but you thinks that somebody deserves to be lynched on day 1. The only reason that somebody should be lynched can only be based on the gut feeling of the town. All one can do is speculate. Posts have been made. Day 1 is the day that alignments are made. By the way Idk, can you also tell who you think might be town?

I do believe that the mod is only getting sadder because there are a few lurkers lately. Certainly not because of idk, and drk.

[jasonT1981]

Still having some major computer issues Gah, will have them sorted by tomorrow as my new RAM chips arrive. running currently on 64mb ram, can you imagine how slow that is? lol

[Idiotking]

My opinion on you is that you are willing to be lynched, just to prove your point.

Do you find this suspicous?

With your recent posts it is like you are telling the town, nobody, but rc should be lynched, because he lied.

Did I imply that? I'd be fine killing you and DRK off, since I see both of you as scum as well.

Why didn’t you push on me as much as you have pushed on rc?

You'd already built a case against yourself simply by your actions. Killing you wouldn't gain any info for the town really, because I'm pretty sure if you're scum, your buddies have already written you off as a lost cause and would be fine with bussing you. There are very few people who haven't openly questioned your play, and I wouldn't be surprised if you factored extremely high on everyone's scumlist.

That said, I wanted to get something that would get the town information. If you did perchance flip town, we wouldn't gain any info as far as I can tell. Nor would we if you flipped scum. As such, I went for the next most suspicious act I'd seen, and that being RC's random vote. The rest is history.

The only time you have commented to me is when I have made a comment against you.

This is not true in any sense of the word. I suggest you go reread the thread.

You could have made your case against rc in your first post, as soon as it came to your attention. The idea is to look for scum, not clutter the thread with unimportant information.

There IS no such thing as unimportant information. I find this implication suspicious in its own right. If it's information, it's information available to the town.

In my first post concerning RC, I hadn't developed the case, I was just posing a question to get a response and to go from there. Eventually that turned into pressuring RC, which was when we got the OMGUS vote. I do not believe I would have the case I do now had I tried stating my case (which didn't really exist at the time) in my first post to RC.

Make your case and be done with it.

No. Things don't work that way. Discussion does not work that way.

Did you believe that you could have changed rc’s mind with all of those quotes?

Absolutely not. I wanted to see a response. That response would be what changed MY mind. He responded in a defensive/OMGUS manner, and as such, my mind was not changed.

I really don't care if I convince my suspect one way or the other. I care if I'm convinced that my case is incorrect and I went after a townie by mistake. This was/is not the case.

I will tell you one thing people will decide on which side of the case to choose, because you both can’t be scum.

What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? NO! It's Captain Obvious!

I believe that the idea of day one is to show alignment. If someone with ties is lynched alignment will show more clearly who scum is and who is town, based on support. There is no way to be 100% sure someone is scum, until that person is killed. I saw drk’s top three you, Jason, and me. The person on the bottom of his list(not known) can easily be scum, so obviously this is just who he thinks is scummy. As an example of alignment, with the recent argument, I can clearly say that if you are scum, I doubt that drk and rc are scum as well, unless you are a Sk. If you want to know who are the top three of my list:
1. Idk
2. Drk, the only reason he is not 1 is because you believe that anti-town is scum, while he doesn’t. Otherwise you both would be at the top.
3. Jason, still hasn’t given his opinion on who he thinks is scum on the bw.
I gave my three who are yours?

Surprise surprise.

I already gave my scumlist recently. Read the damn thread.

Even scum can make a solid case nothing on day one is foolproof.

I refuse to accept that. There has to be SOMETHING amiss. The question is whether or not the town notices it.

Nobody but you thinks that somebody deserves to be lynched on day 1.

Oh, so that's why we always have no-lynches on D1, is that it? What the hell is this statement?

The only reason that somebody should be lynched can only be based on the gut feeling of the town. All one can do is speculate. Posts have been made. Day 1 is the day that alignments are made. By the way Idk, can you also tell who you think might be town?

I get townie reads from:

Ryan
Paradoxombie
DTM
Shrine
Zach (when he posts)
Dank (haven't heard anything from the replacement, so I can't say one way or the other)

I'd count toro and jason as town if they'd post more, but due to recent inactivity, I can't tell one way or the other. Perhaps toro would lean slightly to the scummy side for not making significant posts and seemingly avoiding getting into the discussion voluntarily. As for jason, I haven't seen anything he's done jump out and bite me as suspicious, except for the inactivity (I'm always paranoid when people with computer problems can still log on often enough to not be prodded, and yet don't make any posts).

I do believe that the mod is only getting sadder because there are a few lurkers lately. Certainly not because of idk, and drk.

Yeah, we have way too many lurkers. Only two people are ridiculously active, Paradoxombie, RC, you, and DTM pop in often enough, but we haven't heard from Ryan in a while, and everyone else is just plain missing.

[ryan2754]

To everyone:
For the next five or six days, I will be working on getting moved up to Toledo for medical school.
Thus, my time for the next few days for mafia will be limited.
I am just posting to let everyone know that I WON'T be going absent, but will keep along with the thread. However, my responses will be limited as I will not have the time to make my long posts that I usually make. Just letting everyone know.

[Idiotking]

Well speak of the devil.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yeah, we have way too many lurkers.

Clearest thought from you this game.

FoS lurkers

. If you have a good reason, you're exempt from this. I think this FoS covers (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) don_Johnson (yes, I know he just replaced in, but there had to have been something to give thoughts on), Paradoxombie, and Shrine.

Unfortunately, we also have ryan and DTM busy lately, toro and Zach with V/LA, and jason with a faulty computer. That leaves 4 of us able to post up to our normal levels: me, IK, hiphop, and RC. This game is going to have some serious activity issues over the next few days...

On that note, just an early warning of V/LA some point next week. I'll post the days I'll be missing at some point in the next few days.

[DTMaster]

@DRK
Question 1: Yes I am plus your meta call about IK's martyr play.

I'm saying that his case is a scum sign. The fact that he's willing to defend a crap case so strongly tells me that he doesn't actually care whether or not RC is scum, just that he gets lynched.

Yet this is sub optimal play for day one scum. It's in my gut right now that its the "town going out on the limb" rather then "scum doing everything to lynch x person". I would be more inclined to make this argument when it is closer to the end game where it is tougher on scum teams.

How do you think I should have challenged his case then? As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't look scummy unless my accusations are true.

I would have challenged IK's case in a similar manner if I was focused on looking at his scumminess. With your recent response in 262, I interpreted as: You were looking at "why he was just wrong not why is he scummy from his responses" But on a reread I understand that you got these scum-signs after you started your initial questioning.

Also you didn't clarify your question in 262.

I'll try to be more clear next time, plus you could always ask me to restate/clarify something you don't understand.

@RC
An issue with your case.

1. Logical Fallacy can be argued by simple difference of opinion. While it is true that IK's posts heavily implies extreme views, this can be written off by conflicting ideologies between two players. It is not necessarily scummy nor townie to have a different logic process. Plus see my DRK response for additional reasons why IK's actions can be viewed in a townie light.

Overall I agree that you have very valid points.

@Ryan
Good luck with medical school and everything.

@Jason
Ouchies 64 mb ram is really old.

@Don
Status report on your reread and such?

@To myself Outloud.
My original question to Jason is drowning with the recent charges of IK. As the IK debate goes on it makes me wonder if everyone is tunneling too strongly. Scum can easily slip in the debate and bandwagon onto IK (or bus IK for scummy validity), I should look into the vote count reasoning for everyone's votes. This gets harder to debate with others with the recent inactive calls.

[Shrinehme]

Misc. Comments:

Showing that someone's argument makes no sense is part of defending someone. Poking holes in the accuser's arguments is a very simple, universal way to defend yourself or another player. Do you honestly think it isn't?

Or it could be clarifying the situation so as to not let misconception/misrepresention wrongly influence others. Even if I were to push for a given person's lynch, I wouldn't want to allow for incorrect information to cloud someone's cognizance.

That's what an Anti-Town player would want.

I'm inexperienced, therefore

obviously

I'd be stupid enough to buddy to this extent.

I hate when people say this...

I get townie reads from:
Shrine

You

really

have a townie read from me? I think it'd be silly for anyone to have any justified read on me right now, unfortunately.
Please explain this.

IdiotKing

:
- Can you refer me to your case againt RedCoyote? I'm sure it's somewhere within the quote forest... I just can't find it.
- I'm judging, from these more recent posts and the vote count, that RedCoyote is your primary focus. But it seems that you single HipHop out curiously often; calling out for his posts and tearing them apart line-by-line as soon as he posts it. It seems like you continuously bring him to the table [even though it's already been established that he's suspicious] because he's an easy target for you.
- Why do you suspect DeathRowKitty?

[Idiotking]

Or it could be clarifying the situation so as to not let misconception/misrepresention wrongly influence others. Even if I were to push for a given person's lynch, I wouldn't want to allow for incorrect information to cloud someone's cognizance.

That's what an Anti-Town player would want.

That's reasonable to an limit. DRK hurled himself above and beyond that limit. There's only so long you can argue against someone's case on another player before it becomes defense.

You

really

have a townie read from me? I think it'd be silly for anyone to have any justified read on me right now, unfortunately.
Please explain this.

I don't see lurkers as automatically scummy unless they're being obvious about it. It's the difference between "well, maybe it could be RL issues" and "he's making 'I'm here just don't have anything to say' posts, this is stupid." You helped bring up the issue about RC's original vote, and given my opinions about RC, it's natural for you and DTM to get townie points for that.

- Can you refer me to your case againt RedCoyote? I'm sure it's somewhere within the quote forest... I just can't find it.

I didn't make a specific "well here it is all in a neat little box" type posts like RC did (maybe I need to do one for organization), but I'll quote some points that show the gist of the case:

We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?

The bottom line is, the fact that you brought up the repetition like that sounds defensive. Dealing with the repeated issue would have made more sense, and while you did that, you flood the post with "why did you think my vote was random?" when it was quite obviously because you hadn't posted any explanation at the time. And I still hold to my belief that you made up that reason AFTER your initial vote post.

You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by now anyway.

And my opinion of the timeline:

Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.

After that begin to bat around some arguments with DTM and a few others, which was fine. But then when I get into the fray you question my intentions for pressuring you. Again, defensive, since you questioned my intentions when I tried pushing the case farther than anyone else had (that's what pressure is for, to see your reactions to stiff resistance/argumentation).

Shortly thereafter you vote for me in a manner which I still consider OMGUS, and as paradoxombie pointed out, it would be strange for my vote against you to not be a part of the reason (since your problem with my case was based on your lack of faith in my intentions).

This progression of events indicates to me that you did indeed suspect me for suspecting you, and as such resulted in an OMGUS vote.

IN SHORT:
Random vote
Defensiveness concerning why the town wanted a random vote
Probable lie concerning why the vote was made
When I pressured, I received an OMGUS vote
DRK buddying like you wouldn't

believe

Misrepresentation of my statements and half-truths in his case against me

- I'm judging, from these more recent posts and the vote count, that RedCoyote is your primary focus. But it seems that you single HipHop out curiously often; calling out for his posts and tearing them apart line-by-line as soon as he posts it. It seems like you continuously bring him to the table [even though it's already been established that he's suspicious] because he's an easy target for you.

In Hiphop's ISO 34-35, he uses reasoning and even wording already presented by Paradoxombie and DRK. Not borrowed, not adapted, word for word. Given Paradoxombie's resistance to the quote wars, I think hiphop saw this as an out, trying to jump on my case to draw even more suspicion away from him.

Reading through the posts around it, starting from Paradoxombie's stated dislike of quote wars, it's clear that hiphop was being opportunistic. From there another discussion arose, none of it original coming from hiphop.

Oh, and his stated reason for voting for me was because I'd said being anti-town is scummy. This is why he voted for me over DRK, who had also been one of the key players in the quote wars.

Seriously, nothing but opportunism coming from hiphop.

- Why do you suspect DeathRowKitty?

Buddying. And not in any small way, considering the quote wars were between DRK and me over RC's case rather than any case we had against each other. And now that DMT brought it up, DRK's stated intent for buddying/defending RC was to poke holes in my arguments, not make me look scummy for having those arguments. This is where it slipped into buddying/defense rather than just questioning my logic; protecting RC by trying to make me look scummy in the process.

All in all, it's very complicated, but it makes sense to me. This is why my top suspects are RC, DRK, and hiphop.

[Idiotking]

And to explain why I tore hiphop's posts apart as soon as he posted them, look at the timing for most of my posts in the last day or so; minutes afterward. It's because it's summer, school's out, college hasn't begun and I've got nothing better to do than sit here all day hitting the refresh button.

[DeathRowKitty]

Question 1: Yes I am plus your meta call about IK's martyr play.

Was that in response to post 270? It looks to me like you might have combined two thoughts here.

Yet this is sub optimal play for day one scum.

Personally, I think that's sub-optimal play for scum any day, but just assuming scum wouldn't do that sets up a very obvious WIFOM situation. If pursuing someone very strongly on comparable evidence to that given this game is part of someone's meta, not doing it as scum would be very obvious and we can't just assume that scum wouldn't do this.

in my gut right now that its the "town going out on the limb" rather then "scum doing everything to lynch x person".

I know that in your recent posts you've been (heavily) implying I'm not considering that option. I've considered that option and I just don't buy the townie going out on a limb idea. A lot of IK's recent posts have said in large part, "You're lying, your vote was clearly OMGUS, and you completely misinterpreted what I said." Meanwhile, I can't see any of these as particularly scummy. In order:
1. Why would RC lie? Despite what IK says, I wouldn't have seen random voting that late as very scummy. Not reading the thread before your first post isn't a scum tell, though it's obviously anti-town.
2. Arguable. I thought at least a couple of reasons for RC's vote initially were fairly clear. I can understand not having the time to put all of the reasons in with his initial vote, especially since RC was busy responding to IK's walls.
3. Again, arguable. I think there's

a lot

of misinterpreting coming from both sides of the argument. The difference is that I find IK's points are often (intentionally?) misleading or irrelevant and just asking to be misinterpreted. I get the feeling IK wants to misinterpret RC's posts. I suppose that's just my opinion though.

The initial reason I said his

case

was looking less scummy was because I thought there was a pretty decent chance it was just "town going out on the limb." When I re-read, I just couldn't justify this stance to myself. I still can't. Not helping IK right now is the fact that he's taken to calling RC out on

everything

(or at least close to everything) he says, scummy or not. I don't see why a townie would ever want to do that.

@IK
Explain how stupid you think I am that I would buddy so obviously. Be as detailed as you can.

[Shrinehme]

And to explain why I tore hiphop's posts apart as soon as he posted them, look at the timing for most of my posts in the last day or so; minutes afterward. It's because it's summer, school's out, college hasn't begun and I've got nothing better to do than sit here all day hitting the refresh button.

I wasn't really referring to the timing as much as I was the fact that you seemed to intentionally lure him, knowing that you could make out whatever he posted to be suspicious.

@IK
Explain how stupid you think I am that I would buddy so obviously. Be as detailed as you can.

Keyword: "would". Isn't going into conditional like this [i.e. would a given player

would

do if he were x alignment] what falls under WIFOM?

Is this the only defense you have for his buddying accusation?

Wait, is this the same accusation that you used "I'm inexperienced, therefore obviously I'd [Shrine aside: there's that "would" again...] be stupid enough to buddy to this extent." to defend yourself with?!

[DeathRowKitty]

Is this the only defense you have for his buddying accusation?

Here's what caused the perceived buddying situation:
1. IK attacked RC. I saw it as a crap case (and still do).
2. I pointed out why I thought it was a crap case.
3. IK and I argued back and forth on it. The longer we argued, the more it looked like I was buddying.

I think I even mentioned something to this effect (I wouldn't even begin to guess where), butI was just accused of defending RC. Yes, what you quoted was WIFOM, but if IK won't listen to what I see is the obvious (the situation I outlined above), I figure getting him to explain why I would buddy so obviously might convince him. I can't see a good explanation besides the fact that I'm a complete idiot (no reference intended to IK's username), which I'm fairly certain I'm not.

[RedCoyote]

I'll keep this response short and only respond to the juicy bits. As DTM and Shrine have hinted at, some players are slipping through the cracks, notably Toro and jason. It would be one thing if they were following along with the discussion, but both of them have appeared to use this opportunity to shed some pressure without giving any offense of their own. I'd like to hear more from both of these players, as well as don.

---

And I'm waiting for you to tell me where the logical fallacy is. Either you're town or you're not.

Or you're a third party, or you're a power role, or you're a Mason, or you're a Miller, etc. All of these possibilities necessarily interfere with the question in the way you presented it.

It's fine to ask a player if they think someone else is town or mafia, but it's not fine to pressure people into saying they think someone is obviously scum or obviously town. You said you were exaggerating, well okay, but that's the same exaggerating that got you to say I'm making really "pushy, defensive" posts. Why should a townie need to distort the truth to make a point?

THAT WAS TO HIPHOP, NOT TORO. NOBODY ELSE HAS MADE THIS 'MISTAKE', AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTOOD WHO I WAS TALKING TO.

If that's who you meant, that's fine. There's no reason to get angry, because the point is the same whether it is Toro or hiphop in that you never voted either of these players seriously. I just find it hard to believe when you are using rhetoric like "exploding in scummyness" and then virtually ignore them after that.

Do you try to convince yourself that you're wrong?

I try to find the truth, regardless of whatever wagon I happen to be on. Right now I think I see some serious red flags when I read you, but I don't need someone to "convince me I'm wrong" in order to move my vote or pressure anyone else.

No, I'm not interested in looking beyond the conclusion that your original vote was definitely random.

That is a shame.

Wonderful how you slip Paradoxombie's name in there when I've indicated no suspicion of him. Coincidentally, I've got a very townie read from Paradox. I just disagree with some ideas as to how things should work in the game, not this particular game itself.

I will retract this though. I was wrapping up the post a little too fast yesterday and I thought I had read over you saying something negative toward Paradox, but I think that was ryan's post I was reading. This doesn't really change the fact that your three biggest suspects all coincidentally happen to be voting you.

---

Logical Fallacy can be argued by simple difference of opinion. While it is true that IK's posts heavily implies extreme views, this can be written off by conflicting ideologies between two players.

Well, if I hadn't have called Ik on his "extreme views", I wonder if he would've kept on with them? Like I said above, I think it's fair to argue that a player should have a town/mafia read on me, no doubt. My problem was that Ik was making the question in such a way that no matter what DRK would've said Ik would've given him the business.

Ik: Is RC the best townie ever or the most obvious scum?
DRK: Townie
Ik: BUDDYING!

Ik: Is RC the best townie ever or the most obvious scum?
DRK: Scum
Ik: HYPOCRITE!

---

I think it'd be silly for anyone to have any justified read on me right now, unfortunately.
Please explain this.

This confused me a bit as well, even in Zach's case.