Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[Javert]

I would not be adverse to a hammer without even letting ICEninja claim if he is going to try and be squirrelly about it. If I had another vote, I would vote him again right now.

[Oso]

[Edit before submit]I see ICE went to L-1 and refuses to claim, shame my vote is already on him it really irks me when someone who has a gun pointed at their head (figuratively speaking) thinks they still have a choice. Someone do me a favor and express a willingness to hammer him.[/Edit before submit]

@magnus

@Oso: do you believe ICE to be scum for reasons other than his attack against Mute?

Short answer: Yes. This is probably going to turn out more of a wall than I wanted so I'll address your question in the post I make after this one (it may be morning as it was a long day and I'ma thinking of hitting the sack).[Add-on: I'll even answer it game tomorrow if we go into night before I am able to get back, if you want.]

@ICENinja

He has just tried to sell us on something that just isn't so using a blatant distortion, again in my opinion.

Can you try to explain this again? I really don't understand where this is coming from.

I re-read my post and didn't express myself clearly enough I don't think. So I'll have another go.

The string of Mute ISOs that you mentioned at the end of this post,

..
-In ISO 4 he makes a FoS against Javert. In ISO 5 he says that Javert's actions, as scum, wouldn't make sense. In ISO 6, he votes for Javert. In ISO 8, he says he feels justified in putting Javert at L-2. This seems contradictory to me.

You string together some points that are true on the face of them. He (Mute) did FOS Javert then he also proceeded to vote him later and he did state that he felt justified at putting him at what he(Mute) thought was L-2 at the time of voting Javert.

My problem is that in Mute's ISO #5 (I'll quote it) he isn't saying Javert isn't scum, he's questioning the reason for your vote and than asking Javert directly about his vote on magnus.

Also, the only way Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy. I too, as indicated by a comment made earlier in this post (that is now obsolete but I don't feel like deleting for transparency reasons), believed he voted a player for reasons of not posting yet. Simply declaring a player scum without "if" is one of the most solid scum tells in the game, I'd say. I don't usually make serious votes like this so early, but...
Vote Javert.

Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?
Under rules section 3:

3.4 Play to win. Don't do anything obviously detrimental to your faction on purpose.

That would be going against his wincon if he were scum...
Though, I agree this level of obfuscating (please tell me I've used that word correctly here, I've never used it before ) is counter to the town as well.

Javert, why are you voting for someone when they have yet to post, stating outright they are scum?

At no point does he state that he doesn't think Javert might not be scummy. He quotes your vote post, asks why would Javert(scum) out magnus(scum) at this point in the game. He's questioning your vote, not stating his opinion other than implicitly agreeing that if Javert is town, his behavior is anti-town when he concedes this point

"Though, I agree this level of obfuscating (please tell me I've used that word correctly here, I've never used it before ) is counter to the town as well."

The way you strung the ISOs together, it sounds like "Mute FOSed Javert, then Mute said it doesn't make sense for Javert to be scum,

then he went and voted him anyway

, that's a scummy contradiction". When what actually happened is Mute FOSed Javert, questioned your stated reasons for voting Javert and asked Javert directly what exactly he was doing, then voted Javert(as far as I can see at least) for his flippant response. One of the reasons I voted Javert as well. As far as I can tell, aside from the question he asks Javert at the end of that post, ISO 5 has nothing whatsoever to do with Mute's eventual vote of Javert.

That's where the distortion is at, you painted another player in the absolutely worst possible light with that string of ISOs by dropping an unrelated post in there and trying to get it to say what you wanted to.

[Humble Poirot]

Unvote

, I've been pretty busy today and was unable to come back and post. I skimmed a bit and still need to read a lot.

But, I saw L-1 vote by Prox and requests for a claim. I don't think ICE should do anything until everyone presents a clear view of who their suspects are and why.

I'm unvoting to prevent a quickhammer. I've had my share of those. I want to be able to have my say before any hammer.

Javert's call for a hammer without a claim is a terrible idea.

See you in 15 hs, aprox.

[ICEninja]

Javert, how am I being squirrelly? Have you even read my case against Mute? What do you think about the case against DP? Your blatant tunnel vision is hurting this game, as this day is clearly not over.

Oso, the only reason anyone at that point could have thought Javert was scum based on his vote was because he was letting slip scum knowledge. Mute admitted to having voted Javert for this reason, yet in the post you seem to think I'm twisting his words, he didn't think scum would bus their partner at this point.

He just specifically said "Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?", and then proceeded to vote Javert in his next post because he believed Javert was ousting his partner.

Please explain how I am not justified in being suspicious of Mute for this?

That's where the distortion is at, you painted another player in the absolutely worst possible light with that string of ISOs by dropping an unrelated post in there and trying to get it to say what you wanted to.

Wrong. You seem so convinced that I'm scum that you're ignoring the fact that I caught Mute in a very scummy activity, and are attacking me for calling him out on this.

[Oso]

What the hell, who really needs sleep...

Ok, now I know ICE is scum, no doubt in my mind. I'ma have to go the quote route again.

..
He just specifically said "Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?", and then proceeded to vote Javert in his next post because he believed Javert was ousting his partner.
..

Wrong. Read Mute's Post-23 and Post-28. He's voting (from what I can figure out up to that point in the game) because Javert isn't answering his question. Javert blew it off pretty much.

I followed your link to Post-52 and you are absolutely right, he does cop to voting for the reason you stated. Yet you neglect to point out that in that same post Mute also cops to dismissing that reason it because it's a flawed premise.

The question I have is this: Why wasn't Post-52 included when you stated you had your "full case" laid out in Post - 78? The posts you mention are Mute's ISOs 0,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 (Game Posts 7,12,17,21,23,28 and 33). Post-52 isn't mentioned at all.

I'll answer what I think the answer to that is for the folks at home. Because it's a case put together with duct tape and chewing gum. I've played with ICENinja before (granted only one game) but in that game I was scum, he was town. One thing that impressed me about him was how difficult it would be to get him lynched, he was an NK candidate for sure. He didn't add things to a case later on unless they happened after he made his initial case. Not the case here. Had he been actually reading Mute to see if he was a legitimate scum candidate, I'd bet money in Vegas that he would not only have referenced Mute's admission in Post-52, Town ICENinja would have also taken into account unvote Post - 48 and, if not dropped it altogether, waited until he had a more solid body of posts to reference. Mute's unvote post (of Javert) is not the best Mea culpa I've seen, but if sincere (and I believe it is), it covers his(Mute's) jabs at Javert sufficiently in my opinion.

******

@Magus
You can add the above to my reasons why I think ICENinja is scum.

When I went back and re-read ICENinja to see why he was garnering votes, I was at the thin edge of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why?
ConSpiracy said this earlier

..
I have played my only game here on the site with ICE. His first vote struck me as really, really odd, not as ICE would do.
His "gambit" thing also wasn't something I would think ICE to do.

I had already thought there was something off about ICE when I read that, wasn't really thinking it was scummy though. I had only seen one game from him and he was town. I was seriously entertaining the thought that despite Javert, Edgerobin and HP making some very good points, he might be acting scummy enough to not get NKed for a purpose, just overdoing it.

That all ended when he laid out his "full case" on Mute. With the post references he(ICENinja) gave, there is just no way around it in my eyes: He laid out a bunch of references, told people what he thought it was, but using those same references not only didn't support his case, it exposed him for what he is. Scum. He didn't get any actual supporting evidence for the claim of the contradiction until he went looking for it and even that evidence fails if you look at fairly, at least in my estimation.

So, to answer your original question, I borrow reasons from some other folks cases that I think are solid and spot on to add to what I've said so far.

Javert Post-54: Agree with the entire post so I won't quote it, I'll just link it.

Edgerobin Post-117:Specifically this part

Town should be analysing people's posts. They don't always, but we have to assume that they will. Now, on reading Javert's post there are only, in my view, four possible interpretations:
1) Javert is insane
2) Javert is scum outing a scumbuddy
3) Javert is scum pretending to out his partner
4) Javert is null trying to bait (I say null because obviously scum can try baiting as well)

1) isn't worth taking seriously. 2) would be against the rules. 3) would have no point (it doesn't clearly say "this guy is my partner", nor is it in any way going to get the target lynched, since it premises the target's scummines on Javert's own). 4), of course, is the most likely - no matter what Jav's alignment.

So, if he was thinking at all about Jav's alignment, he should have concluded that the best thing to do would be to hold off and see what happens. The fact that he didn't can only suggest that he wasn't interested in Jav's alignment.

HP Post-88:Another one I agree with in it's entirety. Towards the end he covers some ground I just covered but it's always nice to see another player validate what your seeing is actually there.

Actually, those 3 players, at least in regards to their opinion of ICENinja, are pretty much are dead-on for the most part any time they post about him.

Sorry about the wall, I'm for bed now.

[RobCapone]

I'd probably get lazy if no one pushed me to post. I can't go around making wallposts and I can't waste time I could spend posting on reading 1000 word essays on nothing. Skimming will suit me; as it isn't as much what you say as how you say it. Besides, when I have time I really will read the wallposts.

I notice that ICE's tone has shifted a bit since my last visit to the thread. It's now a bit more normal. That makes me think that the old tone actually was an incident of overacting and that ICE has attempted to fix it.

My real issue has been the way he's said things. There've been a few times where I've been close to getting mislynched for trying too hard to end the RVS. But I have also been legitimately lynched for playing the well-versed mild-mannered townie routine too strongly. Seems like tactfulness is overrated in mafia.

Any player can be careful about what he says, but townies should have an easier job doing it.

Since ninja's style has shown itself to be both abnormal and quick to change with pressure, I find it disingenuous.

vote ICEninja

L-1? Time for claim?

this makes no sense, so you put him at L-1 because you find his play abnormal, quick to change, and disingenuous?

1. how do you know it is abnormal?
2. I will give you that this CAN be a slight scum tell, but not reason enough alone imo
3. how can you justify this, how do you know he is disingenuous?

[RobCapone]

I would not be adverse to a hammer without even letting ICEninja claim if he is going to try and be squirrelly about it. If I had another vote, I would vote him again right now.

Can you point out to what you are referring to?

Also can you explain what in your mind he has done that is SO BAD, he shouldn't get an opportunity to claim

[RobCapone]

am going to declare V/LA till monday. too much work, i will get a full read in when i can.

Why not request a replacement? Missing 5 days of content isn't going to make this any easier to follow, I've replaced into games before and it's hard to re-read as the game progresses, why not just get somebody in now early ?

[RobCapone]

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone. I don't think there is anything solid on him. I am not quite sure what to me of what is going on, generally I will vote on what makes the most sense to me.

Now, a lot of people will think I am lurking, but I am not. If I have nothing to say, i won't say anything. I am still inexperienced, so i am not great at knowing what to make of other's posts.

My best way of finding scum is finding the bandwagoners. I don't like bandwagons. I find if someone is constantly jumping on a bandwagon, I take extreme suspicion of him/her.

also, seeing the RVS is done :

unvote

Oh boy I missed this one

1. He says a policy lynch will result in a townie lynched, later when called on it he says something about not enough evidence to find him scummy which isn't what he said originally.

2. "I'm not lurking but I am not posting either" is my summary of what he basically says. Saying you aren't going to post if you have nothing to say when there is more than enough content going on deserving of your participation. How do we know you are not keeping quiet so you won't scum slip?

3. You scumhunt by attacking bandwagoners? Definitely need to play mafia more, you will soon realize town will almost always bandwagon just like scum, that's a horrible guage. You need to look deeper to catch scum, sometimes not but usually you do.

[RobCapone]

* also if you are inexperienced like you say, why play here and not a newbie game where they have ICs who teach you how to play, there are no teachers in this game

Not knowing how to interpret what people say is a cop out, you read it and ask yourself if it makes sense to you, if yes move on, if no question the person about it

Go to mafia discussion and read mastin's guide to scum hunting, he explains what a mafia player should do in games

[DavidParker]

Again - what is the point of this?

If you think lurkers are scummy, you are just warning them not to lurk?

If you don't think lurkers are scummy, why the hell are you even contemplating lynching them?

I think lurking is scummy. However town also lurk, there is explanation for townies lurking, either disinterest or real life keeping them busy. Yes it is warning players not to lurk, if they can't handle the game they should not have signed or should replace out and send flowers to the mod as an apology for signing and then flaking. Assuming players signed to play the game and be involved in finding scum, lurking then becomes a scum tell. I see no point wagoning lurkers during the early stages of a day, it's much more beneficial to go after the information/reaction wagons such as Javerts/Ice's/Mute's/Mine where you will get accusation/defense/etc and just get more information on the table. Voting someone for not being caught up with the game isn't valuable until it actually gets to the point where we are about to lynch someone to end the day.

don't like the fact that he has defended Javert for his attempt at reaction fishing while completely negating the whole exercise. While I feel that yes Javert put the attention on himself, how can ANYONE think he was pro-town enough to be defended like DP was doing. The fact that he completely ruined the gambit to me means that he was doing 2 things.

1. defending Javert because DP thinks (or maybe knows) he is town
2. taking the attention off magnus

My defending of Javert in its purest sense was me realizing what Javert was doing and just wanting to post what came to my head. I post my thought process as it comes and there isn't a huge amount of filtering (when I'm town at least), and in general just react to posts and comment on them in the spur of the moment and post. I saw a bunch of silliness, and 3 people falling for this silliness, so having figured out what was going on I wanted to point out what was going on.

Also this link to magnus you are making with me is a HUGE stretch and how you can possibly fathom such a scum pairing on day 1 without a single flip is beyond me.

David's reaction to magnus's questions is proof that he isn't taking the game serious OR magnus seriously. If I asked somebody questions and they called me annoying, I'd be on his ass even harder, especially if he gives half-assed answers (and yes I have meta to support this statement)

I was annoyed because it seemed he was just asking questions for the sake of asking questions. It's the whole stop and think what you are trying to accomplish with his post. I mean what did he expect me to answer? He posted 6 questions, half of which I could have written several-thousand-word-essays to respond with. He didn't specify anything with the quesitons, just left open-ended broad questions. Would you rather I have written those thousand word essays as a response to show how serious I am about this game? I don't think anyone wants that. I opted for one liners instead.


@Rob: By all means, I was curious as to Ice's wagon. I felt and still do feel it is a legitimately scummy wagon to some extent and was thinking of putting my vote on him, I don't need to hide that. You don't see any case from Parker about ICE because I haven't made one, the case has been made, when the case was first made I found Mute scummier than Ice based on the cases alone, based on the player reactions to the 2 wagons I found ICE somewhat scummier than Mute at times. He has made some comments which just don't rub off as town responses, but other posts such as his 124 do seem like town responses.


I do agree with ICE that there is no reason for a claim at this point. We don't really want a claim until it is likely a hammer has occurred (Ideally a player has posted their intent to hammer, then the player claims, and move on from there).

Also, Oso is now the second person in this game to say he is certain a player is scum. Care to link me to that game where he was town and you were scum?

Mr. I am against PL is now agreeing with me that he would be up for a PL on lurkers

Lurking is scummy(admittedly not in all forms), since when was lynching someone for being scummy a policy lynch?

i can't speculate but if Ice does get lynched and he flips town, this is just going to solidify in my mind he is scum trying to defend Ice for points.

This I agree with entirely seeing as he does fail to give justification for ICE being town.

[RobCapone]

Despite what the wiki says, a policy lynch is lynching somebody for a specific reason

Lynching the known VI is a policy lynch because you know the VI is going to hurt the town
Lynching a lurker can also be called a policy lynch for the same reason, a lurker, if they are town will usually hurt the town(been burned by this before)

So I dont take kindly to lurkers, never have, and if there is nothing going on I will push for a lurker lynch

Thankfully this game has plenty going on, so while I notice who is/isn't participating, I feel that a PL on them now isn't called for.

Lynch all lurkers is a policy lynch but the only one acceptable to me(unless I'm playing with furc and I'm town, I will go to the grave demanding he is policy lynched)

[Oso]

Also, Oso is now the second person in this game to say he is certain a player is scum. Care to link me to that game where he was town and you were scum?

Happy to do it

Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia

[Javert]

1.)

ICEninja, I have read every post you have made. I still think you are scum. I do not have to comment on every single thing in the game. Right now, I actually think Mute is slightly Townish -- I read his posts and I can see an inquisitive, looking-for-scum nature. Also, I am not impressed with your "case," for reasons others have already pointed out. It seems fairly clear to me that Mute's vote on me was largely prompted by my "I think I just won't explain myself" post. If anything, I am certainly more concerned that he may have been holding off his vote until there was some general consensus than I am with your alleged "contradiction."

2.)

HumblePoirot, it is intriguing that you say you are tired of quickhammers. I find that interesting because my last few years on mafiascum have been plagued by ridiculously long games precisely because nobody is willing to hammer. Games are longer than ever. As a result, I am all for shorter days if there has been a good discussion, which there has been in this game.

3.)

RobCapone, what is "so bad" about ICEninja? I think he is lying; and I think he is scum. I read his explanations and

I do not believe them.

I frankly do not see a point in giving a person I think is scum the opportunity to fake-claim and possibly get a wagon off of him as a result. If ICEninja wants to sit there and act like everything is fine and not claim, then he can just get lynched without claiming, so far as I'm concerned. As I alluded to above, I am tired of playing in ridiculously long games: if I think somebody is scum, I am going to push for their lynch.

[ICEninja]

Oso, I seriously can not believe you right now. I just read your post and the fact that you still think I'm wrong and scummy for pointing out what Mute has done that is horribly scummy is just beyond me.

As I've said again and again without anyone seeming to listen or pay attention or understand any of it,

the only way Mute could have found Javert scummy at the time of his FoS and vote was because he felt Javert was busing/distancing a scum buddy

. He later confirmed that this was true, AND called it faulty reasoning.

In one post, he FoSs Javert for the above underlined reason. He then implies that the above underlined reason probably isn't the case. He then VOTES FOR JAVERT FOR THE ABOVE UNDERLINED REASON, despite having said IN HIS LAST POST that it wouldn't make sense for scum to be doing this.

The fact that no one else but me seems to notice this is beyond frustrating.

It is apparent that Javert is going to view me as scum for the rest of the game simply because of his bias. He thinks I'm lying, though I haven't lied about anything this entire game. Sure I exaggerated, but Javert also outright said that magnus is scum, when Javert had no information as to magnus's scum. I still don't see the difference.

[Javert]

BZZZT.

Mute's reasoning was that I playing counter to the Town win-condition because I was purposefully being unhelpful / confusing. This is

not

the argument you made. In fact, Mute questioned your argument, as has been pointed out multiple times. This is not to say that I think Mute's argument is a

good

argument (because there there is a difference between being "anti-Town" and "scummy," and also I do not think my action was anti-town in the least), but it is certainly not contradictory to anything he has posted, nor do I really feel an ill intent behind the argument.

Please die now. I feel no need to repeat how drastically different my vote for magnus_orion is from your "purposefully" bad argument.

[Mute]

The fact that no one else but me seems to notice this is beyond frustrating.

There's a joke here about a blind man, but I forgot it.
Point being, why do you think only you're the one seeing this logic?

[ConSpiracy]

I actually don't have time, but for the sake of this game I am answering Mute. Tomorrow I will post my opinion of other things.

As well, I would like to ask you that when you mention me,

address me and not talk around me

, please.
Yes, you mention things but don't exactly ask

why

I did them, instead you're posting things to say to everyone else. When you direct a question to me I will respond to you.

I got it, I got it. We both have different standards about it, it is fine with me.

As for your evidence against me:
1. You call me out for my vote on Javert, which I should remind you has been dropped by now.
2. You say that I am "subtly trying to get someone lynched" by bringing up policy lynching inappropriately, which is not the case anymore.
3. I voted for him because I felt he was scummy in his posting in the beginning of the game.
4. These are all the points I see you raise against me. If I missed anything, let me know.

1. The vote may be dropped, the case certainly isn't. You voted for him for changing reasons. The vote was a bandwagon-vote, with no clear reason. No good.
2. Well, you

were

. That is even worse than still are. You changed your mind about it as soon as you are called scummy for mentioning a policy lynch. That seems to me you want to lose the attention.
3. Well, no need to quote ICE, since you can find yourself what is bad about this.
That is all, really. I found it odd you didn't respond to my case as soon as I posted it, but I drop that. (read above)

See, this is what I mean Conspiracy. This is asking a question to me.
Why bring you up? It ties into answering Magnus.

I got it again. No need to get bitter about it.
I also found your post extremely weird with all of the you's in it. We are in a game of 13 players, and you address your "case" to me...

You, Conspiracy, I feel are scum. You have only 3 posts in this game, of which your second one is highly scum-opportunistic I feel.
You jumped on the then easiest wagon (me), and instead of giving your case to me as well as against me,

Wait what? This is bogus.
a) You were definitely not the easiest "wagon" back then, that was Javert. He had votes for a reason people believed in back then.
b) You didn't even have a wagon on you, since RVS votes obviously do not count to form a wagon.

you simply spoke out in much the same way ICE has but gave me no room to defend myself with. I feel this to be a scum tactic to push for a lynch. If you'd like I thought of another real-world example, where you are a lawyer/attorney, and I am the person being questioned. Picture it as a scene from a crime show. You are giving your case and personal opinion on the matter, pressing for why everyone should feel that I am scum. You do not ask me a thing to defend myself. You simply say your piece, then go about your day. That leaves me sitting at the bench with a dumb and confused look on my face which leads to nothing but "oh he must be scum (or for the sake of this example, guilty)" as a reaction to the jury.

c) Mentioning again the "no possibility to answer"thingie? That one is not a scumtell, that is a difference of playing styles.
I see it more as a game of 13 players who I have to show you are scum. You can defend if you want (You should actually) but the main audience is the group of players. Just using the word "you" makes it only addressing to one person and makes it hardly a case.

I don't know what to take of ICE. I feel he's been grasping at straws and jumping on the easiest wagon as well. He used my random voting in his case for me that I've seen. But, why is he solely focusing on me?
These are all the votes I feel from page 1 to be the entire list of RVS votes.

Ok, the ICE case isn't good enough, you say. However you said you thought me to be scum. That means you want to lynch me what means you should vote me. Not voting for someone you say is scum is trying to keep the attention away from it. Count that as another point on the Mute case.

The fact that no one else but me seems to notice this is beyond frustrating.

Thanks...

@ everybody: What do you think of the Mute case and of the DP case?

Apparently the only case that can be mentioned is ICE's and the other two are left alone.

I am going to post my thoughts about DP's case tomorrow, I run out of time. You obviously know my opinion about the Mute case.

[ICEninja]

Sorry CS, I forgot that you were also noticing how scummy Mute is.

[jimfinn]

Vote Count D1 #3: Deadline is here
With 13 alive, it is 7 to lynch.

ConSpiracy (0):
Edgerobin (0):
Mute (2): ConSpiracy, ICEninja
ICEninja (5) (L-2): Javert, Edgerobin, Oso, Jerbs, Prox
Oso (0):
manutdforev10 (0):
HumblePoirot (0):
magnus_orion (0):
Javert (0):
RobCapone (0):
DavidParker (2): magnus_orion, RobCapone

[Javert]

1.)

I do not agree with the logic of Mute's posts, but I do not think he is scummy. I am also not a fan of his snarky attitude (e.g., "was it

that

hard" when I explained my random vote, and his recent exchange with ConSpiracy). Although annoying to read, I also do not find it scummy here.

2.)

I am not even really seeing the DavidParker case currently. I even read the game over again to make sure I wasn't missing something.

If I come into a thread and see people acting stupid, I am likely to point it out. If I think somebody posts a bad case, I will often point it out -- even if the case is not on me. Attacking bad play or bad arguments is not the same as defending the player who the attacks are directed towards. This appears to be what DavidParker did. He came to the game to see ridiculous attacks on me, and pointed out why they were silly. And now it seems he is being attacked for it. As for RobCapone’s comment that “DavidParker is not taking the game seriously,” that appears to be a comment borne of inexperience.

3.)

In fact, the one thing that reading the game over again made me realize is that I still really, really dislike ICEninja's Post 47. It seriously catches my eye every time I read it. It is fake, fake, fake. Here is how it pretty much reads to me:

Ah, look at this excellent discussion! How very good! I am so tickled at how productive my “strategy” has been! And for those who aren’t getting the message: this is such a Townlike thing for me to say!

By the by, I was just faking my argument against Javert, my good chaps. I knew what I was doing all along -- well done on catching how scummy I was pretending to be!

And I am so terribly offended by the idea of a policy lynch: why, the very idea makes me grimace in horror!

Oh, and by the way, how about we look at these four people who are not me, because they have not posted enough (despite the fact that the game is on Page 2)?"

Seriously, I have asked

specifically

asked people to read that post

twice

now, and here I am pointing the post out a third time. It is just so wretchedly scummy. Everything single paragraph has its own ridiculousness to it, as summarized above. It is required reading for this game.

[RobCapone]

@ javert - why did you just put a bunch of things that Ice never actually says in a quote to imply that he actually said those things? How is putting words into his mouth a pro-town tactic?

[ICEninja]

Attacking bad play or bad arguments is not the same as defending the player who the attacks are directed towards. This appears to be what DavidParker did. He came to the game to see ridiculous attacks on me, and pointed out why they were silly.

And this is exactly what I was going to say, not wanting to speak for David before he posted, but it's already out there. I agree with this.

I don't like you "abridging" my quote though. I felt like that was extremely rude.

[Javert]

Except my post is entirely accurate depiction with how I read Post 47.

1.)

You overemphasize how good discussion is for Town, and it looks completely contrived;

2.)

You basically say you were "pretending" to look scummy;

3.)

You claim to be "disgusted" with the mention of policy lynching; and

4.)

Then you immediately shift focus to four players for not posting enough by Page 2 of the game.

And this was all in one post.

RobCapone is looking like ICEninja's partner. We can lynch him tomorrow.

[RobCapone]

except you could have just said that, the fact you put it in quotes and implied Ice said it is very scummy play and even though it isn't in the rule set, it should be.

I do agree with your points, just don't agree with your tactics.