Newbie 1143 - Game Over

effortless · Post Post #525 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:45 am

For those skimming this later in the game:

Player A: effortless
Player B: lizk/whoever replaced her
Player X: Thomith

In post 522, Thor665 wrote:
In post 511, effortless wrote:Conveniently forgetting about the post where Gen explains his reasoning. A reasoning that I happen to agree with. Come on Thor, how do you miss something like this? It's right above the vote post!
Seriously, Thor has some explaining to do and until he does we should not lynch Gen_Wolf.

He explains his reasoning on Thomith - I never said he didn't.

So did you see the explanation or did you not? If you did why did you say:

Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:16 am –
his next post
, no rephrase…just a vote for…effortless…no, wait, that would make sense, instead he votes Thomith! Obv. Scum is obvious.

What he doesn't explain is what happened to his effortless/lizk situation and that's what I'm calling out. Let me spell out the flow so you can see the issue I'm pointing at.

Wolf: The scummiest situation is Player A and Player B
Player B: Player A isn't doing what you say they're doing - I'm doing it.
Wolf: Oh, snap, right you are obvious scumspect Player B - let me re-read and I'll clarify what I meant.
-Meanwhile - Player X is taken up as the new bandwagon of choice, one of the primary leaders being Player B and Player A expresses general support of lynching Player X.
Wolf: Player X is very, very scummy. I suspect him and Player B. I will not clarify what happened to my suspect of Player A, I will not discuss why my new top suspect is neither of my old top suspects, I will not discuss why I am supporting a wagon my two top suspects are on about, but I will suddenly gear shift to the leading wagon of the day...also, tomorrow I will immediately vote for (via sheeping) ...Player A, the person I'm not even discussing right now...because...y'know...I STILL super suspect them, even though I'm not saying why I just dropped my case on them like a bad habit.

Seriously effortless - this is *really* clear and *really* obvious. Please point out any other confusions you have with my case, I will crush them like fragile eggs.

There's so many things wrong with this I'm not even sure where to start. You just admitted he explained his reasoning on voting Thomith and now you're saying he would not discuss why he's supporting the wagon. I find it confusing that you keep on contradicting yourself.

Also, you're making it look like Gen had some long standing suspicion on me. When he actually only pointed out something that was

possibly

a little scummy.

Your case is based 90% on what you assume Gen was thinking, instead of what he actually said. And you're not even honest about it. Sometimes you're outright lying. Like here:

Wolf [according to Thor]: Player X is very, very scummy. I suspect him and Player B.
Wolf [reality]: I also thought that either Thomith or Lizk was scummy but didn't know which one!

Thor665 · Post Post #526 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:55 am

In post 525, effortless wrote:So did you see the explanation or did you not? If you did why did you say:

Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:16 am –
his next post
, no rephrase…just a vote for…effortless…no, wait, that would make sense, instead he votes Thomith! Obv. Scum is obvious.

I said that because it was true - could you please point out to me where I said at any point in there anything about him not explaining his vote on Thomith?
Wait...I *didn't* say anything about that...?
In fact I'm pointing out how my issue is the sudden reverse from effortless to Thomith?

It's almost like this makes perfect sense, amirite?

In post 525, effortless wrote:
I will not discuss why I am supporting a wagon my two top suspects are on about, but I will suddenly gear shift to the leading wagon of the day

There's so many things wrong with this I'm not even sure where to start. You just admitted he explained his reasoning on voting Thomith and now you're saying he would not discuss why he's supporting the wagon. I find it confusing that you keep on contradicting yourself.

Let's trim this down to the relevant points.

Thor: He's not explaining his shift from suspecting Players A and B to suddenly be on X.
effortless: You're saying he didn't support the vote on Thomith.
Thor: No - he did that. my issue is the mental twist to supporting a wagon (clearly because he was just supporting any large wagon)
effortless: No, you're contradicting yourself - he explained why he voted Thomith
Thor:

I agree he explained the vote on Thomith as far as that goes.
But his issues with you and liz totally or partially evaporated in that post (question: do you see/agree with that?)
THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)
THEN - he only does it off of sheeping others (again, do you see that?)
THEN - he never got around to clearly defining his case on you (see that?)
And also, note that when he was about lynching you yesterday you were getting a lot of heat, and Thomith wasn't, and he didn't mention Thomith. Then when he comes back Thomith has heat and you don't, and suddenly his vote magically switches. Then when he comes back the next day you have heat, and guess where his suspicions are again (DO YOU SEE THIS!?!)

The rest of your post is basically explaining how he never had a strong suspicion of you which I say, GREAT because that makes my issues with him stronger, not weaker in any way, shape, or form. Also, whether or not he had strong issues with you, he was clearly working up to voting you yesterday up until the wagons shifted, and then he followed where they went. He doesn't have real reads because he's scum.

effortless · Post Post #527 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:10 am

So he did explain his vote on Thomith but not why he changed his suspicion from me and liz to him? Is that what you're saying?

effortless · Post Post #528 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:16 am

In post 526, Thor665 wrote:
And also, note that
when he was about lynching you yesterday you were getting a lot of heat
, and Thomith wasn't, and he didn't mention Thomith. Then when he comes back Thomith has heat and you don't, and suddenly his vote magically switches. Then when he comes back the next day you have heat, and guess where his suspicions are again (DO YOU SEE THIS!?!)

LOL no I wasn't. Now you're just making stuff up.

Lunitawolf · Post Post #529 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:52 am

@Effortless

Will you please address quote and Thor's questions laid out in post 525, question by question. It would help me (and others) analyze the situation. Just saying, "lol no, you're lying" doesn't help.

Specifically, these questions:

Thor wrote:
I agree he explained the vote on Thomith as far as that goes.
But his issues with you and liz totally or partially evaporated in that post (question: do you see/agree with that?)
THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)
THEN - he only does it off of sheeping others (again, do you see that?)
THEN - he never got around to clearly defining his case on you (see that?)
And also, note that when he was about lynching you yesterday you were getting a lot of heat, and Thomith wasn't, and he didn't mention Thomith. Then when he comes back Thomith has heat and you don't, and suddenly his vote magically switches. Then when he comes back the next day you have heat, and guess where his suspicions are again (DO YOU SEE THIS!?!)

racerman13 · Post Post #530 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:14 am

I'm guessing there's no chance of a Haylynch today, so I'll look for the other scum

. Haylen is still my top suspect, though.

effortless · Post Post #531 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:22 am

In post 529, Lunitawolf wrote:
@Effortless

Will you please address quote and Thor's questions laid out in post 525, question by question. It would help me (and others) analyze the situation. Just saying, "lol no, you're lying" doesn't help.

I wasn't just saying he's lying, I gave an example. He lied about Gen saying he found both liz and Thomith suspicious. Gen said he

used to think

that

one of them

was scum and after reading through their conversation decided it was probably Thomith.

I'll try to answer but it's a little difficult. The wording isn't exactly clear and sometimes it isn't obvious what the actual question is.

Thor wrote:
But his issues with you and liz totally or partially evaporated in that post (question: do you see/agree with that?)

Liz and Thomith were at each others' throats, it's not surprising that as he found Thomith more suspicious liz became less so.
I wouldn't necessarily expect him to explain his reasoning in detail. But I think he said enough that you can figure out what he was thinking if you try.

THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)

Yes, he did vote me on day 2. I fail to see the point of this question.

THEN - he only does it off of sheeping others (again, do you see that?)
THEN - he never got around to clearly defining his case on you (see that?)

I guess it's the same question twice. My impression was that he wasn't very sure about his vote at first but found your (Lunita's) vote convincing. So yeah, I guess that's sheeping. I fail to see it as a strong scumtell.

And also, note that when he was about lynching you yesterday you were getting a lot of heat, and Thomith wasn't, and he didn't mention Thomith. Then when he comes back Thomith has heat and you don't, and suddenly his vote magically switches. Then when he comes back the next day you have heat, and guess where his suspicions are again (DO YOU SEE THIS!?!)

As I said before this is partially untrue. Thor tries to tell a story of Gen going for whoever is getting the most heat. Except the facts don't support it.

effortless · Post Post #532 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:33 am

In post 526, Thor665 wrote:
THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)

The rest of your post is basically explaining how he never had a strong suspicion of you which I say, GREAT because that makes my issues with him stronger, not weaker in any way, shape, or form. Also, whether or not he had strong issues with you, he was clearly working up to voting you yesterday up until the wagons shifted, and then he followed where they went. He doesn't have real reads because he's scum.

BTW, I kinda get what Thor is trying to say here. Problem is that there are a bunch of other explanations that he doesn't even bother mention.

Which is really my main issue. He never actually tried to look at Gen's case objectively. He uses every argument that he can think of hoping that we'll find at least one of them convincing enough to lynch Gen.

Thor665 · Post Post #533 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:14 am

In post 531, effortless wrote:I wasn't just saying he's lying, I gave an example. He lied about Gen saying he found both liz and Thomith suspicious. Gen said he
used to think
that
one of them
was scum and after reading through their conversation decided it was probably Thomith.

If he used to think one of the two of them was scum - then he found them suspicious. Now you're just splitting hairs awkwardly. Stop it.
Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect. I think you're starting to confuse yourself here, by saying Thomith but meaning effortless - though my comments still hold firm in that question.

[quote="In post 531

Thor wrote:But his issues with you and liz totally or partially evaporated in that post (question: do you see/agree with that?)

Liz and Thomith were at each others' throats, it's not surprising that as he found Thomith more suspicious liz became less so.
I wouldn't necessarily expect him to explain his reasoning in detail. But I think he said enough that you can figure out what he was thinking if you try.[/quote]
1. You're not noting how he dropped you totally and then returned to you totally.
2. If he thought liz was scum (as previously stated) then it is an unusual mental shift to agree that her top suspect is scum - but still comment on her being scummy. That's called getting on a mislynch while still elaving yourself open to mislynch the next one. I'll agree he is doing exactly what you're saying - but it's hardly looking town motivated.

[quote="In post 531

THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)

Yes, he did vote me on day 2. I fail to see the point of this question.[/quote]
This is so close to the core of the issue it at least explains your confusion, but I'm starting to get lost as to how to explain this clearer. Let's try again; PLEASE tell me where I lose you;

His top suspects are you and lizk.
He re-reads and suddenly top suspects are lizk and Thomith (aka easy wagon du jour) NO MENTION is made of you or his issues with you.
Thomith i slynched.
He opens Day 2 sheeping other people's cases trying to get you lynched.
If he suspected you so much where did it go Day 1?
If he didn't suspect you much on Day 1...where did this come from Day 2?

[quote="In post 531I guess it's the same question twice. My impression was that he wasn't very sure about his vote at first but found your (Lunita's) vote convincing. So yeah, I guess that's sheeping. I fail to see it as a strong scumtell.[/quote]
See above.
Also - he actually sheeped both Ozzie *and* Lunita - we sussed that out a few pages ago when he tried to claim I was misrepresenting him.
What do you think was his mental journey from Day 1 to Day 2? If you think it makes sense and I'm off my gourd, where was he coming from?

[quote="In post 531As I said before this is partially untrue. Thor tries to tell a story of Gen going for whoever is getting the most heat. Except the facts don't support it.[/quote]

Well, I go back to read and put this together, and I'll agree in the very specific there wasn't a huge thing on you (though, I do think the pressure you were getting over the "inflating" comment and his eagerness to hop onto that is fairly telling). So, I'll withdraw the hunt for easy lynch as regards you specifically - but let's look at the core claim of 'hunt for an easy lnch'

Here is the Hazard wagon at peak L-1:
Ozzie72, Thomith, Haylen,

Gen Wolf

Here is the Tomtih wagon at peak L-1:
Hazard With a Glove, lizk000, TravisB,

Gen_wolf

he has cast *both* L-1 votes in this game thus far.

When he was called on the L-1 vote on Hazard he went back to his Travis vote - a vote he had made for random bandwagon reasons - he still didn't explain why it was a good lynch for his own reasons yet, so that vote is meaningless. He also tells Thomith to put his vote back on Hazard (all while taking his off).
When asked why he thinks Travis is scummy he unvotes and says he really doesn't. (though, read that post and I challenge you to tell me he's not mud slinging on Travis as he gets off)
He then puts Daybid to L-2 (sheeping Thomith to do so, and calling him out on things he had literally just done himself)
He then slips around onto Hazard again for a spell before hopping on Thomith L-1 (a few posts before he'd been digging at effortless for finding Thomith suspect)

I very much believe he's hunting for easy lynches. Why am I wrong?

Thor665 · Post Post #534 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:18 am

Spoiler: Tags from above fixed - derp!

effortless · Post Post #535 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:36 am

In post 534, Thor665 wrote:
In post 531, effortless wrote:I wasn't just saying he's lying, I gave an example. He lied about Gen saying he found both liz and Thomith suspicious. Gen said he
used to think
that
one of them
was scum and after reading through their conversation decided it was probably Thomith.

If he used to think one of the two of them was scum - then he found them suspicious. Now you're just splitting hairs awkwardly. Stop it.

Stop changing what people said and I'll stop correcting you.

Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect. I think you're starting to confuse yourself here, by saying Thomith but meaning effortless - though my comments still hold firm in that question.

No, he said liz used to be one of his top suspects. Go back and read his post again.

Yes, he did vote me on day 2. I fail to see the point of this question.

This is so close to the core of the issue it at least explains your confusion, but I'm starting to get lost as to how to explain this clearer. Let's try again; PLEASE tell me where I lose you;

It's clear, it's just not convincing.

His top suspects are you and lizk.

That's your guess. It's probably wrong too.

In post 531, effortless wrote:As I said before this is partially untrue. Thor tries to tell a story of Gen going for whoever is getting the most heat. Except the facts don't support it.

Well, I go back to read and put this together, and I'll agree in the very specific there wasn't a huge thing on you (though, I do think the pressure you were getting over the "inflating" comment and his eagerness to hop onto that is fairly telling). So, I'll withdraw the hunt for easy lynch as regards you specifically - but let's look at the core claim of 'hunt for an easy lnch'

Again you're pushing your interpretations as facts. He asked for clarification on the inflating comment.
You aren't wrong about just this specifically. You're wrong about a bunch of little things and they add up.

Here is the Hazard wagon at peak L-1:
Ozzie72, Thomith, Haylen,
Gen Wolf

Here is the Tomtih wagon at peak L-1:
Hazard With a Glove, lizk000, TravisB,
Gen_wolf

he has cast *both* L-1 votes in this game thus far.

Except you said putting Hazard/you at L-1 was a strong town play. Which one is it now?

I very much believe he's hunting for easy lynches. Why am I wrong?

I'm guessing it's either because you became too attached to your theory and it's clouding your judgement or because you're scum and think that his unusual play makes him a good lynch target.

For now I'm leaning towards the second explanation but I'm not 100% sure.

If he suspected you so much where did it go Day 1?
If he didn't suspect you much on Day 1...where did this come from Day 2?

What do you think was his mental journey from Day 1 to Day 2? If you think it makes sense and I'm off my gourd, where was he coming from?

To me this is the only part of your case that's actually solid. Everything else he did had a very obvious explanation for a townie.
I have my own theory about this but I'll let Gen_Wolf answer it.

Yes, I ignored a lot of your points. The answer to all of them is that I disagree because you got your facts wrong or using your own interpretation as a starting point for the discussion.

Thor665 · Post Post #536 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:55 am

In post 535, effortless wrote:Stop changing what people said and I'll stop correcting you.

He called them both suspicious.
I said he found them both scummy.
Are you seriously arguing that scummy and suspicious are so totally different that I'm misrepresenting his calls?
Dude, hairs, splitting, stop.

In post 535, effortless wrote:
Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect. I think you're starting to confuse yourself here, by saying Thomith but meaning effortless - though my comments still hold firm in that question.

No, he said liz used to be one of his top suspects. Go back and read his post again.

You go back and re-read it. He says he thinks one is scummy - isn't sure which, basically says he's "starting" to suspect Thomith. then votes Thomith.
Well, Thomith was town - so where is his lizk suspicion? Oh, wait, never mind he suspects you because people made a case on you.
They were his top two suspects - flat out fact per his own commentary.

In post 535, effortless wrote:
His top suspects are you and lizk.

That's your guess. It's probably wrong too.

By that logic - this is your guess and it's probably wrong too.
There's a reason I was asking *him* to clarify his thoughts and what happened. Stop being pedantic, and if you're having issues with my take on what he's saying at least zip it and allow him to defend himself when I'm asking him to explain exactly what he's thinking, make sense?

In post 535, effortless wrote:Again you're pushing your interpretations as facts. He asked for clarification on the inflating comment.
You aren't wrong about just this specifically. You're wrong about a bunch of little things and they add up.

There's a big difference between me offering up my views and opinions and me saying they're facts.
By the same logic I could say your 'facts' are wrong about how you think I'm advancing the case.
As soon as we go down that road madness ensues. At thi sstage you're basically accussing me of making up my interpretation of what happened which...no.

In post 535, effortless wrote:Except you said putting Hazard/you at L-1 was a strong town play. Which one is it now?

Cute duck of me showing he is hunting easy wagons. I will note, that you're "lying about the facts" now just as much as what you claim I'm doing. That said, there isn't any lying on my part, and I doubt there is on your part.

I had *two* comments about the L-1 push.

1. I said Wolf was scummy for how he got on the wagon.
2. I said that putting someone to L-1 isn't inherently a scumtell.

There is no conflict in those opinions nor in my current expressed case on Wolf. Let me know where it's boggling you and I'll clarify.

In post 535, effortless wrote:
I very much believe he's hunting for easy lynches. Why am I wrong?

I'm guessing it's either because you became too attached to your theory and it's clouding your judgement or because you're scum and think that his unusual play makes him a good lynch target.

Dude...seriously. For a guy accusing me of being too tunneled you just flat out dismissed the evidence I showed of his hunting for easy lynches (except for some of it that you agreed with). You're basically arguing with me for the sake of argument at this stage, yeah? I showed how he's hunting easy lynches, which supports my accusation thereof. You need to either show how it's not him hunting easy lynches (which...I guess you could argue he's just town who is very comfortable with lynches and very comfortable voting people he doesn't suspect, and very comfortable sheeping players to advance his own unvoiced cases) That's a reasonable argument to want to make if you wish to approach it like that. But just waving your hand and dismissing my case and citing it as inherently bad when you're not actually dealing with the core value of said case but are instead picking at disagreements with how I've worded stuff does NOT help us scumhunt.

In post 535, effortless wrote:or using your own interpretation as a starting point for the discussion.

This is not wrong or improper in any way, shape, or form. In fact I submit it's highly needed in Mafia games.

Gen_Wolf · Post Post #537 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:51 am

In post 532, effortless wrote:
In post 526, Thor665 wrote:
THEN - at the start of the next day he was suddenly back voting you, a player you're saying he never had a strong issue with (do you see/agree with that?)

The rest of your post is basically explaining how he never had a strong suspicion of you which I say, GREAT because that makes my issues with him stronger, not weaker in any way, shape, or form. Also, whether or not he had strong issues with you, he was clearly working up to voting you yesterday up until the wagons shifted, and then he followed where they went. He doesn't have real reads because he's scum.

BTW, I kinda get what Thor is trying to say here. Problem is that there are a bunch of other explanations that he doesn't even bother mention.

Which is really my main issue. He never actually tried to look at Gen's case objectively. He uses every argument that he can think of hoping that we'll find at least one of them convincing enough to lynch Gen.

That's what ive been trying to say! And then I just gave up, got on some angry rant and then Thor used that against me as well!

Gen_Wolf · Post Post #538 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:53 am

Anyways, here are my thoughts:

I think I will be lynched still, sadly

When i flip town, the two main suspects will be Haylen and Thor!

I think effortless is def town (If he isnt he played it very well) but i honestly think he is!

@Thor - the Wolf bandwagon died out when people saw me for a townie

And lastly, i'm going down fighting so

Unvote: Vote: Haylen

P.S. sorry for the broken post!

effortless · Post Post #539 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:31 pm

In post 536, Thor665 wrote:
In post 535, effortless wrote:Stop changing what people said and I'll stop correcting you.

He called them both suspicious.
I said he found them both scummy.
Are you seriously arguing that scummy and suspicious are so totally different that I'm misrepresenting his calls?
Dude, hairs, splitting, stop.

No, you said he called Liz the most suspicious when he voted Thomith. He actually said he

had

thought one of them was scum before the re-read. Huge difference.
You've got your timeline wrong and you could also be wrong about him preferring liz to Thomith before the re-read. I don't care about the scummy vs suspicious part.

In post 535, effortless wrote:
Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect. I think you're starting to confuse yourself here, by saying Thomith but meaning effortless - though my comments still hold firm in that question.

No, he said liz used to be one of his top suspects. Go back and read his post again.

You go back and re-read it. He says
he thinks one is scummy - isn't sure which
, basically says he's "starting" to suspect Thomith. then votes Thomith.

You're taking the word "starting" out of context. He gave his reasoning for Thomith and even said he'd vote him after checking it wasn't the hammer. He made up his mind at that point. For the bolded part see above. You're changing the timeline and it's making Gen look worse.

There's a reason I was asking *him* to clarify his thoughts and what happened. Stop being pedantic, and if you're having issues with my take on what he's saying at least zip it and allow him to defend himself when I'm asking him to explain exactly what he's thinking, make sense?

Woah, you're saying you're allowed to put words into his mouth and I'm not allowed to call you out on it?

And I actually agree that he should clarify what he was thinking.

In post 535, effortless wrote:Again you're pushing your interpretations as facts. He asked for clarification on the inflating comment.
You aren't wrong about just this specifically. You're wrong about a bunch of little things and they add up.

There's a big difference between me offering up my views and opinions and me saying they're facts.
By the same logic I could say your 'facts' are wrong about how you think I'm advancing the case.
As soon as we go down that road madness ensues. At thi sstage you're basically accussing me of making up my interpretation of what happened which...no.

I think we're way past that as I have no idea what you're trying to say here. So let me back up a bit. Based on what I read I don't think you have a case. And I think you're trying too hard to show that you do.

You're basically arguing with me for the sake of argument at this stage, yeah?

You wish.

But just waving your hand and dismissing my case and citing it as inherently bad when you're not actually dealing with the core value of said case but are instead picking at disagreements with how I've worded stuff does NOT help us scumhunt.

See that's the problem. We aren't disagreeing about wording we're disagreeing about facts.

In post 535, effortless wrote:or using your own interpretation as a starting point for the discussion.

This is not wrong or improper in any way, shape, or form. In fact I submit it's highly needed in Mafia games.

Let me put it this way: Your arguments are more convincing if I don't go back to check what Gen said. I think that's a problem.

effortless · Post Post #540 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:35 pm

In post 538, Gen_Wolf wrote:

And lastly, i'm going down fighting

I hate to say but you're not. You need to explain your thought process behind chosing to vote Thomith over lizk on day 1 and then again not voting lizk on day 2.

Thor665 · Post Post #541 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:36 pm

If you're being lynched the wagon isn't dead, and vice versa.

Also, two questions for you Wolf;

1. If I was to accuse you of having no solid basis for any vote you make, and your votes changing more than a traffic light - what would be your answer to this?

2. What, specifically, do you think was a good point effortless made against me? (feel free to pick more than one, just as long as you describe why they're good points).

Thor665 · Post Post #542 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:36 pm

In post 540, effortless wrote:
In post 538, Gen_Wolf wrote:

And lastly, i'm going down fighting

I hate to say but you're not. You need to explain your thought process behind chosing to vote Thomith over lizk on day 1 and then again not voting lizk on day 2.

Thor approves.

Thor665 · Post Post #543 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:49 pm

In post 539, effortless wrote:No, you said he called Liz the most suspicious when he voted Thomith. He actually said he
had
thought one of them was scum before the re-read. Huge difference.

I agree - I don't believe I said that, and if you think I did I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. Could you quote it to rub it in my face, please?

In post 539, effortless wrote:You're taking the word "starting" out of context.

No I'm not - you're thinking I am. I actually never defined the word 'starting' other than noting that he'd said it. If you read the case as "starting to suspect Thomith *more*" then my words still hold true and your issue goes away in a puff of purple smoke.

And you're saying he didn't say the bolded or I'm misrepresenting it? He very much said that, it's practically a quote. Here's the actual words;

"I also thought that either Thomith or Lizk was scummy but didn't know which one! After re-reading i'm starting to suspect you Thomith"

He thought Thomith and Liz were scummy (I will HAPPILY accept he said it was an either/or situation - but I never claimed otherwise or used that as an issue against him in any way) Then he says he's decided it's Thomith. I don't see how I'm shifting/changing/twisting that at all. Could you dial me in to your point, I'm missing it - clearly.

In post 539, effortless wrote:Woah, you're saying you're allowed to put words into his mouth and I'm not allowed to call you out on it?

I'm saying you calling me out on "putting words in his mouth" when I specifically say "this is how I see things - could you clarify what went down from your angle you filthy scum?" is kind of silly. If you agree I asked him about it then my misrep (which isn't) is hardly a devious plan. If you disagree with my opinion - but have no idea what he really meant - then you should be happy to let him answer. You chose a third path and are now acting like I'm out of my gourd all while horribly misusing misrep as a case.

In post 539, effortless wrote:And I actually agree that he should clarify what he was thinking.

Derp! Careful, you're starting to agree with me that there might have been unclarified shenanigans and that our only difference is I see them as scummy and you don't...oh, wait...I'm still lying, right? Derpy-doo-dah.

In post 539, effortless wrote:I think we're way past that as I have no idea what you're trying to say here. So let me back up a bit. Based on what I read I don't think you have a case. And I think you're trying too hard to show that you do.

That's fine.
Now explain why it's scummy as opposed to scumhunting and we'll be back on the same page in every way.

In post 539, effortless wrote:See that's the problem. We aren't disagreeing about wording we're disagreeing about facts.

Actually, I feel we're disagreeing about what *is* a fact - which is really a debate about wording. But sure. Could you show the specific facts I'm misrepresenting? That would own my face and make it easy to lynch the obvious scum, yes? So far we've been quibbling about them - which means probably they're not as fact like as you'd prefer to think. As far as I can tell the main one is I disagree with you on how to phrase "suspects both" and you claim my timeline is off in some manner, but I'm still not sure how. Clarity?

effortless · Post Post #544 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:17 pm

In post 543, Thor665 wrote:
In post 539, effortless wrote:No, you said he called Liz the most suspicious when he voted Thomith. He actually said he
had
thought one of them was scum before the re-read. Huge difference.

I agree - I don't believe I said that, and if you think I did I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. Could you quote it to rub it in my face, please?

In post 533, Thor665 wrote:Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect.

In post 522, Thor665 wrote:
Wolf: Player X [Thomith] is very, very scummy. I suspect him and Player B [lizk].

He said he suspected them before the re-read. He never said he still suspected lizk after re-reading. The most natural interpretation is that he didn't.

racerman13 · Post Post #545 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:30 pm

Ok guys. My top two suspects are Haylen and Thor.

Vote: Thor665

Thor665 · Post Post #546 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:46 pm

In post 544, effortless wrote:He said he suspected them before the re-read. He never said he still suspected lizk after re-reading. The most natural interpretation is that he didn't.

I see that as a not unreasonable interpretation - I don't see it as intrinsically superior to mine to the point it's a lie. Even you're using the word interpretation in your answer - which suggests it is 'open to'

If you go with the theory of him not suspecting liz in any way or form at the point he voted Thomith you believe that recasts all his actions prior and post that into a town vibe?

Thor665 · Post Post #547 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:47 pm

Also - to clarify - he *did* say he still suspected her after the re-read, but he was starting to suspect Thomith (more) which I'll accept could be interpreted as suspecting liz less as part of the either/or scale.

effortless · Post Post #548 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:00 pm

In post 533, Thor665 wrote:Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect.

This part isn't open to interpretation. Either he did say lizk was still his stop suspect or he didn't. You're saying he did. In reality he didn't. Stop denying the obvious.

effortless · Post Post #549 (ISO) » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:01 pm

EBWOP

In post 548, effortless wrote:
In post 533, Thor665 wrote:Also, when he voted Thomith he specifically noted liz as still his top suspect.

This part isn't open to interpretation. Either he did say lizk was still his top suspect or he didn't. You're saying he did. In reality he didn't. Stop denying the obvious.