Mini 1652: Sweet Dreams - Game Over!

[bji]

Lets lynch Gliffie, EPM, Tmj, West, or johnny

I would narrow that to EPM, TMJ, or West.

[JohnnyFarrar]

West over Gliffie?

[West9]

I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?

[bji]

I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?

I like Gliffie. Gliffie replaced Aero, who I also liked.

[pisskop]

And you liked Titus.

[JohnnyFarrar]

I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?

I like Gliffie. Gliffie replaced Aero, who I also liked.

Butt y tho

[JohnnyFarrar]

Also I mean why cut me out of the suspect list? The townreads I am getting are from people who know my play, which is not a camp you've slept in

[bji]

And you liked Titus.

I only liked Titus at the end because I couldn't believe that SilverWolf would replace out as scum under that amount of minor pressure, especially given that at the time I thought it was actually contrary to the spirit of the game. Her replacing out as scum didn't add up for me. But I was wrong.

I've never not liked Aero/Gliffie for what that's worth. Aero's initial tussle with you seemed really sincere (just like my tussle with you was) and his position was better argued and more rational than mine was.

As you'll recall, that wagon that drove you to L-1 and eventuated your Informed Town claim was heavily influenced by me, Aero, and JohnnyFarrar. Looking back on it, do you think there was a clue in that about who is scum?

[bji]

Also I mean why cut me out of the suspect list? The townreads I am getting are from people who know my play, which is not a camp you've slept in

It's not that you're not a suspect, it's just that I thought that pisskop was putting a list out there to see what others thought and I figured a good response would be to narrow the list. And I decided that narrowing the list was most useful if I could remove at least 2 people. And it came down to a decision between you and West, and I chose West.

I'll be happy to lynch you eventually, but I'd rather lynch West first.

[bji]

I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?

I like Gliffie. Gliffie replaced Aero, who I also liked.

Butt y tho

I do not understand in the slightest what this means.

[JohnnyFarrar]

Sorry internet speak.

But why, though?

[JohnnyFarrar]

@PK what's the gist of the "bji is town" case?

[evilpacman18]

my day opened up perfectly today. I'm gonna start by reading and commenting on the end of D1.

[bji]

Yes it is. You originally claimed that there nothing new. The fact is there was clearly stuff you should have responded to in the post. You can't just take a large post and then highlight the odd sentence where I repeat something said before, out of context, just to try and show I said nothing new. It's a cheap attempt to score points and town doesn't do that in my experience.

Responding to individual sentences in your original post is not unreasonable at all, especially because I did it in exactly one place, where I thought it made a particularly clear point, and not in any other part of my long posting. That's all I'm going to say about this because this particular sub-argument is pointless.

No, it's not that our position's are irreconcilable, it's your thought process that is. You can't say that:

1

It's possible referencing Titus was innocent and therefore your explanation makes sense.

2

Referencing Titus is still suspicious.
And expect to be taken seriously do you?

Absolutely. Unless you believe that there is no such thing as suspicion of guilt in mafia, only certainty of guilt. Do you believe that?

Except you know that the reason I said I agree with Titus is because I agreed with Titus. It wouldn't be worth saying "I agree with some of what Gliffe is saying but differ in the following...." or something ridiculous to that extent.

You chose Titus to agree with, not pisskop to disagree with or Gliffie to partially agree with. You must admit that this is true. Whether or not this is suspicious is the entirety of the debate here and I do not think we're going to agree, which is why I think our positions are irreconcileable.

Oh look, another quote of mine with the context mysteriously removed.

That was not my intention, and I do not think that anyone following the debate (if anyone was) had any trouble understanding the context of the quote. This is more hot air about irrelevent aspects of the way that I am framing my responses to you. You are clearly looking to doubtcast anything I am saying by attacking not just my statements, but irrelevant aspects of the way that I am making those statements.

Anyway, how is the way me and TMJ behaving consistant with scum bussing?

TMJ asked the same thing later, and in the interest of trying to keep this post shorter, I'll answer this question along with his in a response to his post.

1

You ignored literally every question in 1187, even the part where I asked you to rephrase your own question so I could actually respond.

That is bullshit man. I responded to nearly every single paragraph from post 1187 in post 1197,

including rephrasing my question at the end in response to your request that I do so,

and I even quoted the part of your post that I was responding to in doing so

. I cannot even fathom how you can make this statement!

2

No misrepping != scumhunting.

Whatever man. I'm scumhunting, call it whatever you want.

3

But you

didn't

defend it. When I challenged you, you simply handwaved my entire post away. I had to bait you into defending yourself. And despite the fact it was the first time I comprehensively responded, you claimed there was "nothing new" and tried to quickly put the topic behind us. That's not what the way you treat a top scumread.

I handwaved your post away because you had explicitly stated that you didn't want to talk about it anymore. You said:

"I mean, I am indignant even to respond to this sort of level argument, but I have this horrid feeling that if I don't respond, you're going to clog the thread up more than if I did."

and

"PEdit: @bji - because we should actually be discussing about better stuff than this."

So it seemed to me that you didn't really want to even talk about it.

And by the way, who gives a shit if I temporarily handwaved your post away, I responded to it like 3 posts later when you made it clear that you did want to keep talking about it.

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevent bullshit about the mechanics of this discussion? Is this your way of trying to detract from the actual topic at hand?

If someone challenges your case, especially one of your top scumreads, why back away? Why agree to disagree?

Because I believe that we've made our cases and I don't see them progressing much further with further discussion. That's why. I don't want to waste everyone's time with repetitive arguments.

You can't be serious right?

Yes. I'm happy to let this topic die because I think that it

is

wasting everyone's time. So I'll say now that you are welcome to the final word and I will not respond to you on this topic anymore. I have made my points clear and made them repeatedly as have you. I believe we understand each other, and that no one else even cares.

[evilpacman18]

Reading D1 from page 25 cuz that was where I fell behind. I'm gonna start with 5 pages for now cuz of all the walls and because I don't want to make walls myself and see if I can do 5 at a time like today and tomorrow to get caught up.

This already sticks out

Yeah, Ari is scum.

As far as I remember, SW didn't say much about TJM and wasn't scumreading him as much as Titus pretended to be but SW must've known that TJM wasn't gonna be able to carry a game so it's really unlikely that she was trying to bus Ari. If I recall correctly, at this point in the game Ari was in a position where he could've been the potential lynch and SW was the first vote on it so I really don't think Ari is scum. I was townreading him already. aaaaaand I just remembered he claimed neighborizer. Oops.

Honestly rereading bji without the goggles on, he starts to look insightful and trustworthy. VAD looks town too, Prolapsed Brain does not. The contradiction in SW's questioning of Prolapsed below is telling, 1 because it's contradictory "you've been hopping on every wagon"/"you've been voting me all game" and unfocused and two because she doesn't try to actually accuse Prolapsed of being scum. She just gets frustrated... with her partner turning against her? Maybe.

Victor: What is scummy about 566? I like to scumhunt on my wagon. What is your issue with it?

P. Brain-your vote is extremely opportunistic because you've been hopping on every wagon you can find and not explaining your votes. You've been voting for me all game.

This game is becoming extremely frustrating.

sigh well that speculation kind of falls through a bit right on the next page when SW DOES vote for Prolapsed. I don't think my theory is completely implausible still.
The thing about SW is that on a second read, knowing she was scum, her frustratedness actually seems really sincere. As if she couldn't see why she was being wagoned when she felt like her partner was being way scummier than her. 634 is really telling. Not to mention the fact that as soon as SW replaces out, Prolapsed follows Titus onto the Ari wagon. Prolapsed should've been playing enough to know that both Ari and SW were really unlikely to be scum. In that scenario they were either both town or one was town and one was the counterwagon. We already know which was which now and if I'm right on Prolapsed then I don't think it's likely that there was scum on the wagon at the time Titus and Prolapsed jumped on it. In other words it was lucky and available for finishing off by scum, who didn't have much part in starting it. This is understandable because the Nickname slot just looked bad and some people found Ari distasteful anyway. This is what I'm referring to:

Votecount 1.11

Aristophanes

[6] - Count Dooku, West9, Gliffie, pisskop, Titus, Prolapsed Brain

Titus

[2] - VictorDeAngelo, bji

Prolapsed Brain

[2] - JohnnyFarrar, Aristophanes

bji

[1] - evilpacman18

Not Voting

[2] - Lapsa, Tjoe Min Ja

With

13

alive, it's

7

to lynch.

Deadline for Day One is Wednesday, March 18, @ 10:00 AM EST, which is in (expired on 2015-03-18 10:00:00).

So we have a pretty limited pool of potential scum to complete a trio starring Titus and Prolapsed. I'd say it's either TJM, Johnny, or West9 (I'd say Gliffe too but I trust bji's strong townread). However I remember really reading townreading West9 and I think unless Titus was negligent enough to not read SW's freakout and see how much she outed Prolapsed, it's also unlikely that she started to hardbus TJM after SW had tried to hardbus Prolapsed. Which leaves Johnny. I'll go back and check if that makes sense interaction wise later.
Also Titus votes TMJ in 743. She wouldn't have a scum read on both of buddies when she was likely to be the lynch.

Anyway that's 25-30.

[evilpacman18]

Has Prolapsed claimed or something? Why is nobody trying to lynch him?

[bji]

Has Prolapsed claimed or something? Why is nobody trying to lynch him?

If you're going to believe that Prolapsed Brain is scum, you have to believe that he'd be willing to lynch Titus. And say "Solves THAT problem" when doing so. That would be really ballsy.

Also P Brain posted an actual reasonable post with actual reads in post 1160 right before requesting replacement. I want to believe that P Brain was town who was trying to make one final attempt at being helpful before replacing out.

But I've been wrong - really wrong - about replacing-out motivations before, so ...

One more thing of interest, in post 404:

God, so many delicious scums to choose from. It's like a buffet.

Let's go back to this one:

UNVOTE:

VOTE: SillvverrWollff

P Brain had suspicion of alot of people, but chose to vote SilverWolf. Distancing? Could be. I am not sure though.

Also, I know I gave you a hard time before for not reading/writing, but you've really delivered today. Your post was really interesting and gave me alot to think about. Well done.

[VictorDeAngelo]

Responding to individual sentences in your original post is not unreasonable at all, especially because I did it in exactly one place, where I thought it made a particularly clear point, and not in any other part of my long posting. That's all I'm going to say about this because this particular sub-argument is pointless.

But you didn't respond to it. You simply requoted it and essentially said "Look, here's a sentence where Victor repeated himself. Therefore when I said that all he did in the post is repeat itself it must have been true.". It was scummy as hell and however much you want to try and dismiss as pointless I'm not really inclined to.

No, it's not that our position's are irreconcilable, it's your thought process that is. You can't say that:

1

It's possible referencing Titus was innocent and therefore your explanation makes sense.

2

Referencing Titus is still suspicious.
And expect to be taken seriously do you?

Absolutely. Unless you believe that there is no such thing as suspicion of guilt in mafia, only certainty of guilt. Do you believe that?

At risk of falling into a strawman - no I don't. But you've pushed this whole thing on a certainty that the reference is scummy, to the point you ignored everything else. You seem to drift between certainly that I'm scum one minute, to not even listing me among your main lynch candidates the next. It's confusing, and I'd wish you'd clarify yourself.

Except you know that the reason I said I agree with Titus is because I agreed with Titus. It wouldn't be worth saying "I agree with some of what Gliffe is saying but differ in the following...." or something ridiculous to that extent.

You chose Titus to agree with, not pisskop to disagree with or Gliffie to partially agree with. You must admit that this is true. Whether or not this is suspicious is the entirety of the debate here and I do not think we're going to agree, which is why I think our positions are irreconcileable.

I love the whole "You must admit that this is true." bit. I never argued it wasn't true, I argued it wasn't relevent. But whatever, I'm done debating this point too.

Oh look, another quote of mine with the context mysteriously removed.

That was not my intention, and I do not think that anyone following the debate (if anyone was) had any trouble understanding the context of the quote. This is more hot air about irrelevent aspects of the way that I am framing my responses to you. You are clearly looking to doubtcast anything I am saying by attacking not just my statements, but irrelevant aspects of the way that I am making those statements.

First, of course they would. You think people are going to see a long wall and at each little quote say "Hey, let's click back and check the context." They don't. And the way your framing is not irrelevent. The way someone presents a case is telling. The more work they put into distorting the truth, the likelier they are to be scum.

1

You ignored literally every question in 1187, even the part where I asked you to rephrase your own question so I could actually respond.

That is bullshit man. I responded to nearly every single paragraph from post 1187 in post 1197,

including rephrasing my question at the end in response to your request that I do so,

and I even quoted the part of your post that I was responding to in doing so

. I cannot even fathom how you can make this statement!

Oh god, it's crap like this why we go round in circles. Your original response, was and I'll requote in it's entirety:

I mean, I am indignant even to respond to this sort of level argument, but I have this horrid feeling that if I don't respond, you're going to clog the thread up more than if I did.

Sounds just like this:

This case is fabricated and false and leads me to believe you are possible scum. I can sometimes tell when scum is fabricating a scumread against me and this is exactly what it looks like to me but I'll go ahead and address each point.

The exact same sentiment: "I shouldn't have to respond to this, but I'm going to anyway". Scum really don't like defending themselves against me apparently, but they always feel obliged to do it!

Anyway, I think my point was clear. There was nothing in your counterpoint that said anything you hadn't already said. So yeah, I'll leave this topic alone for now and others can take from it what they like.

Sure, after I demanded you go back and read the post and respond, you did. But the fact I eventually got you to respond doesn't negate the fact you tried to handwave my post away in the first place.

3

But you

didn't

defend it. When I challenged you, you simply handwaved my entire post away. I had to bait you into defending yourself. And despite the fact it was the first time I comprehensively responded, you claimed there was "nothing new" and tried to quickly put the topic behind us. That's not what the way you treat a top scumread.

I handwaved your post away because you had explicitly stated that you didn't want to talk about it anymore. You said:

"I mean, I am indignant even to respond to this sort of level argument, but I have this horrid feeling that if I don't respond, you're going to clog the thread up more than if I did."

and

"PEdit: @bji - because we should actually be discussing about better stuff than this."

So it seemed to me that you didn't really want to even talk about it.

And by the way, who gives a shit if I temporarily handwaved your post away, I responded to it like 3 posts later when you made it clear that you did want to keep talking about it.

Then you should have said that, and not dismissed my post because there was nothing when clearly most the post was points made before.

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevent bullshit about the mechanics of this discussion? Is this your way of trying to detract from the actual topic at hand?

Why do trying to do scummy things to prove your point? And why is it so bad I pointed them out?

If someone challenges your case, especially one of your top scumreads, why back away? Why agree to disagree?

Because I believe that we've made our cases and I don't see them progressing much further with further discussion. That's why. I don't want to waste everyone's time with repetitive arguments.

You can't be serious right?

Yes. I'm happy to let this topic die because I think that it

is

wasting everyone's time. So I'll say now that you are welcome to the final word and I will not respond to you on this topic anymore. I have made my points clear and made them repeatedly as have you. I believe we understand each other, and that no one else even cares.

I won't pretend I understand your attitude, but I agree people won't read this, and that is depressing. I won't expect an answer to the questions then.

[pisskop]

Stop. Walling.

Do smaller posts. We need to find scum, not let them hide their errors in walls.

[Aristophanes]

Honestly not reading all that.

Gimme a tl;dr both of you.
Why, in one small paragraph, is the other scum (I assume you're arguing the other is scum)

[Gliffie]

I'm sorry guys, this is not working out. I'm gonna be V/LA for some time and after that I'm gonna be just as busy as I've been these last few days. I'm also getting a bit sick at the moment, so that made my choice easier.

Mod: I'll be replacing out

. Sorry for the trouble.

[pisskop]

:<

Im sad.

[evilpacman18]

Jesus it's impossible to play a game these days without like at least half the playerlist replacing out

[pisskop]

Pacman! Still waiting. I don't want to imagine your scummy yellow body and its scummy white teeth, but you aren't playing the game.

[evilpacman18]

I literally just posted the first of a series