Mini 898: The Game (you just lost it)-OVER

[Diamondilium]

diamond wrote:

Bolded (mine): I don't see why these are mutually exclusive: in fact, both are probably true given the circumstances. I mean, you did state that you thought you were wrong and AK47X2's alignment matter-of-factly.
I even believed your explanation about thinking you were wrong. The explanation doesn't, however, change the fact that you spoke as if you knew AK47X2's alignment it only explains the remarks about believing yourself to be wrong.
For clarification, claiming that you only stated your degree of correctness matter-of-factly doesn't change the fact that you also stated AK47's alignment matter-of-factly.

See, this is pretty much the exact point where it crosses the line for me. You see, all the points where you claim that I am claiming to know his alignment are really just me saying I'm probably wrong. On a side note, now that I think about it, me the conclusions are not at all equally logical. Me predicting my own failure is infinitely more likely than blatantly claiming scum.

I don't see why it's a matter of which is more likely because they are not mutually exclusive and they both have already occurred.

Diamond:

I've ruled out bad wording at this point.

Read as: I am no longer accepting a logical explanation and will be assuming you just claimed scum. That's essentially what you are saying. You are saying that there is no possibility that it was just a strange way to say "this is what I think, but I think I'm wrong about what I think" and that is most definitely in your mind me claiming scum. The real interesting thing is that (note: this is directed at diamond, I just realized I was using second person now and I'm too lazy to edit, so just replace all the you's with diamond if it's confusing you.) you and AK are together on this. When you look at it, it's ridiculous. The only shred of logic in there was that I didn't explain this line:

This is blatant misinterpretation. I've already stated that I believe your explanation for most of your post except one exception. It seems like you're trying to make it seem as if I disregarded your entire defense.

llama:

And as soon as I call him on it, the time constraints go away. Cue the self-loathing when he is telling the truth and flips town...

1. This is not me claiming to know his alignment, it is predicting me being wrong.
2. This is not meant to be taken literally. You see, I am a pessimist for a reason. Either something good happens or I at least get to be right.

Whether or not you were attempting to address your own failures does not change my opinion here. I don't think you understand the main discrepancy here: the difference between "if he flips town" and "when he flips town". Given your explanation and your lack of acknowledgment of the bad wording, I've come to the conclusion that bad wording wasn't the problem here.

The explanation for this wording unless you know two things about me. (ignore this if you are one of those paranoid types that thinks everything is an appeal to emotion. This is put here merely to explain the statement, and I believe it does.) First, I really fail at this game. I normally play on a different site, and there I am usually wrong. This is the seed for the pessimism about my suspicions. Second, I doubt myself a lot. This serves to amplify the Negative light that I view my reading of people in.

Bolding mine.

Now that that's out of the way, There is one last thing that I need to say here. Potential Diamond/Ak scum team? The buddying is pretty hardcore.

Diamond first tries (succeeds really) to divert attention away from Ak's very convenient sudden increase in free time, (If you think this is a really stupid scumtell, I'll explain why I think it's suspicious, but I don't want to waste time) and then proceeds to attack me for something extremely far out.

AK backs him up. If they aren't scum together, then this behavior doesn't really make sense. They both did things of a buddying nature, even when it was not necessary. Diamond first deflects attention, AK then comes up with some quick bs and Diamond backs him on this. Now that I have (hopefully) explained why this is a stupid thing to attack someone on, I will ask you... Why are you teaming? More importantly, why are you teaming on something so silly?

Bolded (mine): This is incredibly inaccurate. Considering that 4 people posted from post 140 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring too since it's the first post since the suspicion on AK built up) it is a blatant lie that I have attempted to divert attention let alone succeed in it. Just take a look at the people who have posted since then: the mod, me, AK47X2, the replacement who hasn't read yet and AK47X2. You clearly haven't lost focus of AK47X2 and no one else who has been posting has been focused on him.
The whole buddying accussation is based on a horrible double standard. I borrowed you're point when attacking Suffer, llama and then you later pointed out that it was good. Suffered attacked Almaster on the same line that I had just pointed out the post before his. The recent case on AK47X2 was Peabody following Almaster's point.
You scrapped together a completely inaccurate and fallacious OMGUS that was clearly not like your other cases and points. Because of this, your OMGUS seemed more like an attempt to discredit your attackers (or rather who you perceived to be attacking you) more than it did legitimate scumhunting.
Therefore

Unvote, Vote: llamaeatataco

.

Max has escaped.
Suffer-2- Torqez, MrSuave
AK47x2-2-Peabody, AlmasterGM
AlmasterGM-2-SolemnJ, Llamaeatataco
Torqez-2-Suffer, Peabody
Llamaeatataco-1-Diamondilium

[llamaeatataco]

uggh. THAT Is why I should not post at 2 AM. From what I can understand, here's what I was trying to say, and the order of events as far as I can tell:

1. I accuse AK of lurking
2. He pops back up super fast
3. Diamond starts attacking my post based on wording.
4. AK also goes on this line of attack.
5. They continue together.

Now, that's the impression I got. This may or may not be correct. As explained below, AK's post is a little like mine, in that you can either think he is accusing me of being scum, or that he is just pointing out bad wording. I don't quite remember why I chose the first option... But anyway, As it stands, the more I think about it the more I find myself believing his explanation.






Ak wrote:

If one of the logical conclusions to be drawn from your post is that you know my alignment, that's where something's gone wrong. At best it's bad wording. At worst it's practically a confession to being scum.

That's what gave me the impression you are saying I am stupid scum.

Ak again:

Thing is, I don't think you're scum. You're scummy at this point, but I think that's more down to the "being a bit too candid about your assertions" bit. Saying that you're scum based on that is the same as saying "llama is an idiot".

Well, I would hound you about contradicting yourself, but I can easily believe your explanation. This would be an example of not thinking about all the explanations for something.


Diamond however, I believe, has also misinterpreted this post. He basically says,

QFT. And, I've ruled out bad wording at this point.

As I said before, this is read as: "I think you are scum that is confessing on Day 1."


GAH! Diamond posted again.
(I'm lazy, so I will just be posting my responses with little numbers that correspond to the arguments he made in bold)

1. You are now being stubborn I believe. I am not saying that they cannot both happen. You have three choices. Either A, B or AB. Your argument of "They are not mutually exclusive" Is so utterly pointless when you realize this that I will at least let you respond before I pass judgment.

2. 'scuse me. I guess I misinterpreted your one sentence vague post. You see, you didn't specify WHERE you ruled out the bad wording. Please do before we argue on stupid things any longer.

3. I am predicting my own failure. You are now obviously tunneling. You see, you refuse to accept that it could possibly be a prediction stated as fact. You have even refused to answer this. You see, After a little more thought, in my opinion, the wording isn't that bad. It is only bad when you think in only concretes. You still have not addressed this, even AFTER a huge post like that.

4. (this one isn't bold, it's the normal text at the end) Wow. And you say I am being fallacious? The way I see, there has been no direct mention of AK's Reappearance since my first post about it. The entire discussion from the three of us has been based around the wording. Are you serious about not seeing the red herring here? Now you get to the point of accusing me of OMGUS. This is only a valid argument when someone has no reason at all for their counter vote. I have both rebutted your accusations and then shown WHY I find your attack scummy. This is a perfectly legitimate course of action as far as I am concerned. I would have gone after you on this regardless of whether I had been your victim. Now, a few posts ago I was thinking that this might escalate too far, but now I'm fairly certain. Your attack is both utterly wrong and utterly scummy. You have ignored my responses and instead pushed your ridiculous case forward hoping to roll right past me. As soon as someone looks at the thread, it becomes obvious what you are doing.

(I guess this trivial little thing turned out to be not so trivial...)


On a side note, I am now happy with AK's activity. The only thing I would fault him for is still the slightly suspicious way he came back. I even buy his excuse.


So, the end result of this is that I find Diamond more scummy and AK less so. You see, both Diamond and I thought Ak was saying the same thing, but that might just be due to bad wording. (deja vu?)

unvote, vote: Diamondilium

[Diamondilium]

Ok this is starting to get out of hand, I imagine for the readers. Instead of going and responding through with only quotes as I have done before, I'm gonna sum up my points and concisely answer everything I possibly can. Lemme know if I missed anything.

I'll start with llama's OMGUS case

THAT Is why I should not post at 2 AM. From what I can understand, here's what I was trying to say, and the order of events as far as I can tell:

1. I accuse AK of lurking
2. He pops back up super fast
3. Diamond starts attacking my post based on wording.
4. AK also goes on this line of attack.
5. They continue together.

Now, that's the impression I got. This may or may not be correct. As explained below, AK's post is a little like mine, in that you can either think he is accusing me of being scum, or that he is just pointing out bad wording. I don't quite remember why I chose the first option... But anyway, As it stands, the more I think about it the more I find myself believing his explanation.

First of all, the entirety of his case was based on an impression which he didn't even bother verifying. Second, my attack started before AK was even being accused of lurking. Third, the fact that two people find you suspicious for the same thing doesn't necessarily mean that they're buddying. It is much more likely to mean that you are actually being scummy. I've also pointed out multiple instances in which others could be considered buddying that llama did not point out. Seems like a double standard to me.

Moving on, saying that I have "ignored" your responses is a lie. A pretty blatant lie considering that there used to be more to the original case that I dropped because I believed part of your explanation.

As for my original point. I ruled out bad wording after you failed to explain it on bad wording and instead tried attributing it wholly to predicting your own failure.

I haven't refused to answer that it could possibly be prediction stated as fact. The prediction part is irrelevant because you're still explaining and acting as if you knew his alignment.

Also, I am not detracting from the suspicion on AK by attacking you because A) I attacked you before people pointed out AK's lurking and B) the only person who cared about his reappearance was you and you clearly haven't forgetten it and C) the other people most likely to care about his reappearance (Peabody and Almaster who attacked him earlier for lurking) haven't even posted since I attacked you.

If anyone reads the thread, even if they don't agree with my original point would have to agree that your counterattack has been very scummy. Also, I note how you vote me right after I vote you, yet you didn't add any new points.

[Raskol]

K, done reading. I see we've got the standard "a bunch of people lurk while the active ones all attack each other" style of D1 going. Classic.

Right now MrSuave, Torqez, and SolemnJ are all lurking and being allowed to get away with it. That's a recipe for a lost game. I don't know if it's been because of the holidays or what, but that's over now and there's no more excuse. We need to get everyone either into the game or out of it (in a body bag if necessary). Of those three, SolemnJ is now eligible for replacement, torqez is V/LA, and MrSuave is probably going to have to be dealt with by us. So...

vote: MrSuave

Requesting a replacement for SolemnJ

That should take care of our lurker infestation, I think.

With regard to the current conversation between diamond and llama, I think llama comes out worse. I'm not sure if I buy the whole "omg he just confessed" thing (to be honest, I think the initial reaction to his comments was way overblown and I've never found such "slips" to be reliable tells), but at the very least, even interpreting his words charitably, I have to say it seems fucking crazy to vote for someone when you're as sure you're wrong about them as llama is saying he was. It's hard for me to say whether it would be stupider for him to do that as town or as scum, but either way it's not someone I'm sure I want alive with me in LyLo. If we can get our lurker problem taken care of, I think I'd be okay with llama as our lynch today if things haven't changed much by deadline.

[llamaeatataco]

Diamond:

First of all, the entirety of his case was based on an impression which he didn't even bother verifying. Second, my attack started before AK was even being accused of lurking. Third, the fact that two people find you suspicious for the same thing doesn't necessarily mean that they're buddying. It is much more likely to mean that you are actually being scummy. I've also pointed out multiple instances in which others could be considered buddying that llama did not point out. Seems like a double standard to me.

An impression that I didn't bother verifying... What impression? That AK was calling me scum? You had the exact same impression, which is why you put in the bit about QFT while you accused me of being stupid scum.

What attack started before AK was accused of lurking? It was the same post that you have been attacking me on that accused him of lurking. (Unless I spontaneously started hallucinating) 'Splain this bit to me please... Am I just confused, or is this another contradiction?

Yes, it is possible that you and AK aren't buddying. Except for the fact that this accusation is ridiculous, and you both have the same unlikely opinion. The difference between this instance and the others of people having the same opinion is that this opinion is completely silly. All of the others were legitimate, this one is just stupid. It is not a double standard, it is two completely different standards.

Moving on, saying that I have "ignored" your responses is a lie. A pretty blatant lie considering that there used to be more to the original case that I dropped because I believed part of your explanation.

A blatant lie? By your own admission, I apparently didn't add anything new... Even though what I last posted I refuted everything you have said.

As for my original point. I ruled out bad wording after you failed to explain it on bad wording and instead tried attributing it wholly to predicting your own failure.

First of all, I didn't make any effort at all to say it was bad wording because first of all, you and I see things differently. I believe that what I said was meant figuratively, whereas you see it as a literal statement that I know his role. Secondly, I didn't see in reason to parrot what had already been put forth. This pretty much kills your entire reason for voting me, which is what exactly? That I claimed scum? That my logical refutation of your attack and my pointing out the scumminess of it set off your scum alarms?

I haven't refused to answer that it could possibly be prediction stated as fact. The prediction part is irrelevant because you're still explaining and acting as if you knew his alignment.

At this point I would probably insert a line of smileys banging their heads against a brick wall if I knew how. I am not at all explaining and acting as if I knew his alignment. I am explaining and acting as if I know I am probably wrong. This is another contradiction. You say that I acted on an assumption that I took no time to verify... And then you do the same thing yourself. You see, we both have a similar problems. I assumed that AK was calling me scum because that's how it seemed to me. You assumed that I was claiming to be scum because that's how it seemed to you. The problem is, AK calling me scum is perfectly normal. That's kind of the point of the game, to accuse people and such. Claiming scum is not at all the point of the game. You will most likely accuse me of using a double standard here, but I'm pretty sure I just explained the difference between the two cases.

Also, I am not detracting from the suspicion on AK by attacking you because A) I attacked you before people pointed out AK's lurking and B) the only person who cared about his reappearance was you and you clearly haven't forgetten it and C) the other people most likely to care about his reappearance (Peabody and Almaster who attacked him earlier for lurking) haven't even posted since I attacked you.

This is so weird I don't even know how to refute it. It's just a non-sequitur.
A.) You most certainly did not start this line of attack before I posted my suspicions about AK.
B.) The first part is owned by C, so I'll leave it for then. The second part, that I haven't forgotten is irrelevant. No, I haven't. How does this mean that you weren't trying to distract us? I certainly was distracted for a while, and in that sense you did partially succeed.
C.) You shouldn't have added this in here. This completely disproves your first point on B. If they haven't posted yet, how do you know they don't care? You went one point too far. In addition, this doesn't help you at all. Their lack of activity does not mean at all that you weren't trying to distract them. Are you saying you know in advance who will post when? This particular contradiction baffles me.

If anyone reads the thread, even if they don't agree with my original point would have to agree that your counterattack has been very scummy. Also, I note how you vote me right after I vote you, yet you didn't add any new points.

My counter attack is scummy? Nope. You see, your attack on me was scummy, because of the flawed logic and the contradictions. I am pointing this out. It would be scummy if I was using it to discredit you and deflect attention, but I am not. I have defended myself adequately, and in fact, I am drawing

more

attention to myself by attacking you. As for discrediting you... This is merely more smoke. You see, I first defended myself, rebutting your arguments. It would be pointless for me to try and discredit you, making more of a fuss over this, after demolishing your arguments like so. This is essentially saying "I'm right, and everyone has to agree with me." Your very last bit is a logical fallacy. I don't know the name, but it's something like an appeal to majority, or an appeal to intelligence.

So Diamond, did I add new points, or did you just fail to respond to my old ones?

mod, I will be v/la until Sunday (55 hours or so)

This is the aforementioned other half of the contradiction. You say that you didn't ignore my points,

and

that I didn't add any new points, and yet my last points sink yours completely. I suppose I will settle for a compromise: You attempted to address my points and failed.

[llamaeatataco]

EBWOP: The v/la notice should be at the bottom, after the first paragraph.

and I need to doublepost due to people posting as I type.

With regard to the current conversation between diamond and llama, I think llama comes out worse. I'm not sure if I buy the whole "omg he just confessed" thing (to be honest, I think the initial reaction to his comments was way overblown and I've never found such "slips" to be reliable tells), but at the very least, even interpreting his words charitably, I have to say it seems fucking crazy to vote for someone when you're as sure you're wrong about them as llama is saying he was. It's hard for me to say whether it would be stupider for him to do that as town or as scum, but either way it's not someone I'm sure I want alive with me in LyLo. If we can get our lurker problem taken care of, I think I'd be okay with llama as our lynch today if things haven't changed much by deadline.

Have you heard of hyperbole? First of all, at the time I really thought he was suspicious for coming back in that manner. It was kind of a pressure vote, kind of me putting my suspicion of his return (only noteworthy action in the game so far) in a quantifiable form. I do believe that there actually

was

some bad wording. You see, in my mind, I thought he was scummy for it. I was just wording my belief that my belief that it was a scum move was wrong. So, I was not saying that I didn't believe he was scum. I most definitely thought it was scummy, I just also knew that I am not very good at determining such things.

My vote was not all that drastic. I don't think he even had any other votes on him. Why do you think it's such a crazy thing? Would you prefer it if I didn't acknowledge my less than stellar abilities? I would rather be a pessimistic person of inferior skill than an egotistical, overconfident person of lesser skill.

[Diamondilium]

Ugh, I'm not gonna type up a large response to llama. But for clarification,
1) When I said you didn't add anything new I was referring to the point about not adding new points or arguments against me -- not really about whether you were refuting the arguments against you. Because of this, I felt like your vote on me was unwarranted and ingenuous and just you voting in response to me voting you.
2) My accusation isn't so much about you overtly claiming your scum so much as it is a slip -- a slip that is a scum tell regardless of whether you were predicting something or not.
3) My apologies. For some reason, I thought that my original point came before the pressure on AK47X2. Regardless your notion of detracting from the pressure is still weak because if we look back at the original argument -- it was fairly small. The fact that it grew so large and something you felt was distracting was uncalled for. Calling my attempts at diversion successful is still incorrect because we haven't seen any evidence of lost interest in AK47X2 mainly because Peabody and Almaster haven't posted recently.
4) On buddying, just because you claim to believe that the accusation is ridiculous doesn't make it ridiculous. And, given AK47's approach which was the opposite of aggressive, I don't see how you got the idea that we are working together to attack you. Now that Raskol has sort of "attacked" you, do you think he's buddying with us?
5) You still were blatantly lying about me ignoring your posts.
6) "I am explaining and acting as if I know I am probably wrong." Probably doesn't belong there. You stated it matter-of-factly about his alignment.

There's really no point in arguing anymore, we'd just be beating a dead horse. It's time other players took the time to post.

[Peabody]

There's really no point in arguing anymore, we'd just be beating a dead horse. It's time other players took the time to post.

AND That's my cue:

After reading the spat between Diamond and Llama, I get the impression that llama's counterpoints/defense are genuine. I believe his wording was just bad, although his schizophrenia is just odd. I tend to agree with llama's assertion that Diamond's points against him were based upon a faulty assumption (that llama slipped up on wording).

I would not support a llama lynch at this point.

[AK47x2]

My feeling on llama is that I don't like his arguments at all, but I don't think he's scum. Just because no scum ever would say what he's said and done. I know that's textbook WIFOM, but I still believe it's accurate.

I would also not be in support of a llama lynch. The scummiest in my mind is still Torquez. Who I want to hear a lot more from at this stage.

[Raskol]

My feeling on llama is that I don't like his arguments at all, but I don't think he's scum. Just because no scum ever would say what he's said and done. I know that's textbook WIFOM, but I still believe it's accurate.

I would also not be in support of a llama lynch. The scummiest in my mind is still Torquez. Who I want to hear a lot more from at this stage.

I just noticed that you've been saying that about Torqez for a while now, but you're still not voting. Is there some reason for that?

[Raskol]

EBWOP: The v/la notice should be at the bottom, after the first paragraph.

and I need to doublepost due to people posting as I type.

With regard to the current conversation between diamond and llama, I think llama comes out worse. I'm not sure if I buy the whole "omg he just confessed" thing (to be honest, I think the initial reaction to his comments was way overblown and I've never found such "slips" to be reliable tells), but at the very least, even interpreting his words charitably, I have to say it seems fucking crazy to vote for someone when you're as sure you're wrong about them as llama is saying he was. It's hard for me to say whether it would be stupider for him to do that as town or as scum, but either way it's not someone I'm sure I want alive with me in LyLo. If we can get our lurker problem taken care of, I think I'd be okay with llama as our lynch today if things haven't changed much by deadline.

Have you heard of hyperbole? First of all, at the time I really thought he was suspicious for coming back in that manner. It was kind of a pressure vote, kind of me putting my suspicion of his return (only noteworthy action in the game so far) in a quantifiable form. I do believe that there actually

was

some bad wording. You see, in my mind, I thought he was scummy for it. I was just wording my belief that my belief that it was a scum move was wrong. So, I was not saying that I didn't believe he was scum. I most definitely thought it was scummy, I just also knew that I am not very good at determining such things.

My vote was not all that drastic. I don't think he even had any other votes on him. Why do you think it's such a crazy thing? Would you prefer it if I didn't acknowledge my less than stellar abilities? I would rather be a pessimistic person of inferior skill than an egotistical, overconfident person of lesser skill.

You honestly thought it was scummy but you also honestly thought you were wrong? But then you voted on the basis of that? So in other words, you're just flailing around, and have no idea what you're doing?

Yeah, what I said stands.

Anyway, for AK and Peabody: even if his wording was just a weird thing and not a scummy thing, what about the reactions he gave off to being called on it? Do you really think those seemed town? I can understand not voting for llama at this point, but to come out straight up and say you wouldn't be willing to support his lynch at all is a bit surprising to me. AFAIC he's not a bad suspect at all.

[qax42]

@

Town

:

Urgh, I had much less time this break than I thought. Sorry about flaking so badly. I have lots of things to comment about, so give me 24 hours. Sorry folks.

[AK47x2]

I just noticed that you've been saying that about Torqez for a while now, but you're still not voting. Is there some reason for that?

I really don't like voting for someone when they haven't had a chance to reply. And Torqez is V/LA, so I'm waiting for his response.

Regarding llama's responses; Yeah, the problem is that my reluctance to vote llama or support a lynch of him is half WIFOM and half gut. And everytime he posts he uses these weird bits of logic that just make him more suspicious and my reasons for thinking him town seem more flawed. I might be in for a big rethink at this point.

[Raskol]

Well, yeah, Torqez is gone

now

....

However, the last time torqez posted was on the same afternoon when you were telling everyone how scummy you found him. He had just come back from his previous V/LA and had announced he was about to catch up soon. You even unvoted that day but left your vote off.

Why didn't you vote him at that time? To all appearances he was rereading the thread and about to catch up, so it seems unlikely you were simply waited because he wasn't there (since, again, he was there that day).

[AK47x2]

Why didn't you vote him at that time? To all appearances he was rereading the thread and about to catch up, so it seems unlikely you were simply waited because he wasn't there (since, again, he was there that day).

I'd vote for him if he comes back, offers an explaination for all his scumminess and it doesn't convince me. Worded previous thing badly; didn't mean "had a chance to reply" so much as "has replied". Stops the possibility of voting and then unvoting because his explanation makes sense.

[Raskol]

Fair enough, I guess. In the meantime, how about making yourself useful and voting for MrSuave?

[AlmasterGM]

Sorry I haven't posted at all, I should've V/LA'd for the extended weekend but I forgot. I'll catch up today.

[MrSuave]

well, I don't see how voting me is useful.

[Raskol]

well, I don't see how voting me is useful.

If this is all you have to say, then I can only hope that others will be able to see why voting you is so useful.

(translation: stop lurking and contribute something or we'll hang you)

[llamaeatataco]

Ok, I'm back. Fortunately, the situation hasn't changed too much.

MRSuave, do you plan on answering for yourself? Is that all you have to say?

Anyway, I'm lazy, so no quotes this time.

Diamond: The wording issue really

is

a dead horse. I used hyperbole, I assumed I was wrong, blah blah blah. That's dead and gone. I still find you attacking me for it scummy, and I think your case was as flawed as I said it was, but until somebody else adds something in, us going at it really won't matter. However, some things need to be addressed. First, I admit that the accusation of buddying was a little tenuous. I mainly just threw that in there to see what you'd say. I find that reaction testing works better if you sneak it in there with something legitimate. You're obviously done with this discussion, so there's not point in leaving it out there. Your response was essentially that you don't understand the accusation at all, but this was rendered moot because of a little memory lapse. Second, I was not blatantly lying. The way I see it, you have ignored my posts, because I don't see any refutation of them in your last post, and the situation is similar elsewhere.

AK: Why do you say this? My defense was logical and perfectly warranted. I would be interested to hear what 'weird little bits of logic' you think I was using. I acknowledge that what makes sense to me probably won't make sense to some other people, but in this instance I don't think I was using particularly peculiar reasoning. Also, what exactly were you saying in your first post since I left? You find me townish because no scum would do what I have done/said. What? This bit thoroughly confused me. What exactly was so stupid no scum would do it? Are you saying that I am too scummy to actually be scum?

Peabody: You must be as crazy as me. =/

Raskol: I don't see how your hostility is warranted. It's almost as if you want to pick up where diamond left off. First of all, I'm pretty sure I just bolded my FoS of AK, I didn't actually vote. Second, I was not 'flailing around' I was going with my first instinct. You are more likely to be wrong if you second guess yourself, so, in the interest of giving myself the best hope, I second-guessed myself and still went with my gut instinct. Now, I still went with my gut and allowed myself to see

why

I would be wrong before hand. You say you wouldn't want me with you in lylo, however your reasoning is flawed. I get the impression that you would have attacked me anyway if I had instead gone ahead and not done anything regarding AK for being indecisive. You see, I voiced my opinion on my reliability and still went with my gut. I was decisive, but I also let you know my own opinion of myself. Your accusation that I am flailing around is backwards.

I think that's everybody, so now I'll go back to Diamond. I voted you because I found you escalating your attack on me to a vote scummy, especially after I easily refuted your points. If you find that action scummy, that's fine.

[Diamondilium]

First, I admit that the accusation of buddying was a little tenuous. I mainly just threw that in there to see what you'd say. I find that reaction testing works better if you sneak it in there with something legitimate.

*Raises Eyebrow*

Fair enough, I guess. In the meantime, how about making yourself useful and voting for MrSuave?

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

[Raskol]

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

Because he's lurking, and from having read two games he was in, I don't think he'll stop it unless his only other alternative is death.

[Diamondilium]

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

Because he's lurking, and from having read two games he was in, I don't think he'll stop it unless his only other alternative is death.

So, he typically lurks when he's scum?

[Raskol]

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

Because he's lurking, and from having read two games he was in, I don't think he'll stop it unless his only other alternative is death.

So, he typically lurks when he's scum?

Yes.

[Peabody]

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

Because he's lurking, and from having read two games he was in, I don't think he'll stop it unless his only other alternative is death.

So, he typically lurks when he's scum?

Yes.

Link?

-----

Raskol: I know it seems a bit odd that I go out and say that I'm not in support of a llama lynch. You did misrepresent me when you said I 'never will' be interested in a llama lynch, but that's alright. On this game, I realize that gut really does work. Many people dismiss arguments as WIFOM, but if you put your mentality in the boots of scum (and if you had experience as scum) you tend to pick out scumtells easier.

Llama, to me, has been showing signs of genuine scumhunting, and his defense to Diamond looks legitimate. Diamond's case on him just looks trivial to me. In fact, the way I see Diamond pushing his case, it makes me a bit suspicious of him.

----

I wish Torqez would get back so I can figure out his defense to my quote.

---

I'm willing to vote MrSuave if you (Raskol) provide me with those links and I feel it is necessary to cast my vote.