Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Dourgrim]

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Grr... I can't really comment on the Gieff/Dour discussion, so I will just acknowledge it exists.

I am going to assume the statements of the following quote are true to make a point.

First statement:

Beyond Birthday launched the attack on Zilla.

Second statement:

BB = scum.

Conclusion:

I think that you and goat revolt found what you were looking for when you followed the scum driven wagon.

You fail to define what Gieff and goat revolt were looking for. This is not derived or assumed in the "given" two statements. This lacks reasoning and/or logical follow through. The "scum driven wagon" is also false since it insinuates that if BB is scum than the wagon is not on or against scum.

You have not addressed the points made in my call to lynch post against Zilla nor proven how they are false. You cannot assume a person is scum in order to conclude that their points are invalid. (Why? With both the "points against a player" and the "accusers alignment" unrelated, either the former, the latter, or both can be true.)

Your post fails to really answer this. Your other post also fail to acknowledge the point raised against Zilla or to bring up a reason why BB>Zilla in terms of scumminess.

Side note: Do you think if Zilla is scum if I am town?

[GIEFF]

I think this is getting dangerously close to talking too-much and overthinking this first lynch.

It is just a coincidence that you said this soon after my post about qwints, or was it related?

[PJ.]

Totally unrelated. Pretty much a thought as i was reading Walls-o-text. Has nothing to do with you Quints vote.

Also, There is NOOOO WAAAAAAYY i'm zilla's buddy. I was the second person to vote her and launched part of the attack. It makes no sense.

[Dourgrim]

Just realized that I failed to answer GIEFF's latest questions, and I certainly don't want to get accused of evading.

I don't feel like I'm nitpicking. You voted B_B, and at the time I believed it was because you thought he was the scummiest player. You presented reasons in the Zilla-WIFOM post that seemed to convince you the B_B lynch was no longer the best one. Whatever you want to call it. And then you later voted for Panzer.

I voted for BB because I thought he was a scummy player, I thought he would be a valid choice for a lynch, and I wanted to help apply pressure to him to gauge his reactions. Panzer and you had been my other two choices up until the BB case was made, and the case against Panzer has been consistently stronger throughout.

And the "whatever you want to call it" line in the above quote bothers me. It reads like you're trying to invalidate the differences in what I'm saying and what you

thought

I was saying by reducing them to a difference in semantics, which is not at all the case. You were repeatedly stating that I had a problem with lynching BB, which is untrue (and has been untrue for quite a long time). I think this is why I've felt off and on that you've been misrepresenting me in the thread. These are

not

simply semantic issues; they're differences in intent and meaning that either I wasn't clearly communicating or you weren't correctly interpreting.

It just looks to me like you had decided to unvote B_B due to logic that seemed so odd I didn't think it was genuine. Has Panzer always been your top choice for a lynch, even after you voted B_B? If not, at what point did he pass up B_B?

As far as the timing of exactly when one suspect outpaces another in scumminess, I'd be a liar if I told you it happened at X time. My opinions change over time in mafia games, and I don't have any sort of "+x" or "x%" system in place that empirically measures a player's scumminess... and even if I had such a system available to me, I probably wouldn't use it because it would strip the fun out of playing the game for me. I read, I analyze, I react, I read some more... rinse and repeat. I'm going to assume by the nature of your questions here that you do not play the game similarly.

Now, would you kindly do me the same courtesy by answering my above questions?

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It seems to me that the answers to these questions should determine how much more of the Town's time we spend on this issue. If you believe any of this points to me being scum, then feel free to explain why. So far, it looks like you're just saying that you believe my logic to be "so odd" you "didn't think it was geniune." Could this potentially be a difference in play styles, or do you truly believe I'm scum because of my "odd logic?" If you don't truly believe I'm scum, I think we're just creating thread noise that isn't going to help the Town.

[GIEFF]

"Whatever you want to call it" because anything you want to call it is fine with me; I don't mean to misrepresent. Call it something, and I'll agree. You list reasons against a B_B lynch, and that's all that's really relevant for the point I'm trying to make.

I do play the game similarly. There is no +x%, -x%, no formula. But I usually know who my top target is. You said Panzer has been your top target the whole time, though right? And that answered my question.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

[Dourgrim]

"Whatever you want to call it" because anything you want to call it is fine with me; I don't mean to misrepresent. Call it something, and I'll agree. You list reasons against a B_B lynch, and that's all that's really relevant for the point I'm trying to make.

But this statement is

also

misrepresentative of what I said because I was

not

at any point reasoning

against

a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

I do play the game similarly. There is no +x%, -x%, no formula. But I usually know who my top target is. You said Panzer has been your top target the whole time, though right? And that answered my question.

I did not say

this

either. I said that, between Panzer and BB, my choice for lynch would be Panzer. Let's not forget that you were a top suspect of mine for quite awhile earlier in the Day due to what I felt was intentional misrepresentation and spin-doctoring. I feel like that's what's happening again here. I tell you in what I believe to be plain English what the intended meaning of my posts was, and you try to paraphrase it down into something else.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF:

Why go at Dourgrim again? Do you think he's a valid lynch option for today?

Now that qwints has responded, could you answer my question?

[militant]

You have been excessively lurky, your predecessor dropped off the map after being accused of being scummy, and now you are defending a Zilla wagon for reasons that would have applied equally well to the B_B wagon, onto which you QUICKLY hopped without writing a single word about him prior to that point.

Hello, scum. Meet my vote.

unvote

vote qwints

Zilla, I would very much like to hear what you think about my above post.

You are sure that Zilla is scum so why do you unvote her and vote someone else who you are also sure is scum but is much less likely to be lynched?

I'm a believer that a day can be TOO long. It can steer away from the scum and can confuse the town and convolute good conversation and lead to a mislynch.

I agree with this also.

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

Perhaps that is Zilla's cue to claim. How about it?

[mykonian]

hey, Militant! welcome back!

good post though, I agree with your question on GIEFF, again a: "I don't agree with you and here you are scummy"-vote.

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a towny because the game dies before we can change. Now we have reasonable activity to change if we want to. If we wait a few days, all we can do is lynch her no matter how or what she claims, just because nobody wants to prolong the day more.

[GIEFF]

But this statement is also misrepresentative of what I said because

I was not at any point reasoning against a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger

, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

Because it's not what you actually said.

See bold below:

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the

problem

here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However,

the worst part about it

is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means

we could end up mislynching twice in a row

based on

a crappy WIFOM decision

if we just blindly followed.

Bad Town play.

Here's

the other problem

I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists.

How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we

avoid the WIFOM problem

with you vs. Zilla and yet

still pursue a valid lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

It is clear that you FIRST present reasons why the B_B lynch is less-than-ideal, and THEN say "OK now that I've established your case is not as 'solid' (your word), let's go back to my other two cases, GIEFF and Panzer." Then you rule out a GIEFF lynch, and therefore settle on Panzer. You said yourself that the first 2 paragraphs informed the conclusion of the 3rd, and your first 2 paragraphs are riddled with reasons why you don't find the B_B to be as solid.

So I disagree with your assertion that you just found Panzer more scummy. This looks like process of elimination-type logic to me, with Panzer being the only one left. And I found it scummy because I don't agree at ALL with the logic you used to find the B_B lynch less "solid," and I get the feeling you don't either, especially based on your inability to be truthful about your reasons for unvoting.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

I did not fail to answer it.

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It is relevant because I found it scummy. Yes, I genuinely believe you may be scum, as I said before.

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

Goat, I am not "going back" to Dourgrim, I am just responding to his response of a question I asked about 6 pages ago.

Now that qwints has responded, could you answer my question?

Waiting for Zilla to respond to my latest post about which points of my case she thinks are valid, and why, if they are indeed valid, they left qwints as neutral in her eyes.
------
I don't think it's time for Zilla to claim yet. She still needs one more "potential" vote. Nobody actually vote her, just express your intention to do so (if you have that intention).

---

good post though, I agree with your question on GIEFF, again a: "I don't agree with you and here you are scummy"-vote.

I'm sorry if it feels that way to you, but it is not the case at all.

[Dourgrim]

But this statement is also misrepresentative of what I said because

I was not at any point reasoning against a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger

, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

Because it's not what you actually said.

See bold below:

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the

problem

here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However,

the worst part about it

is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means

we could end up mislynching twice in a row

based on

a crappy WIFOM decision

if we just blindly followed.

Bad Town play.

Here's

the other problem

I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists.

How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we

avoid the WIFOM problem

with you vs. Zilla and yet

still pursue a valid lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

It is clear that you FIRST present reasons why the B_B lynch is less-than-ideal, and THEN say "OK now that I've established your case is not as 'solid' (your word), let's go back to my other two cases, GIEFF and Panzer." Then you rule out a GIEFF lynch, and therefore settle on Panzer. You said yourself that the first 2 paragraphs informed the conclusion of the 3rd, and your first 2 paragraphs are riddled with reasons why you don't find the B_B to be as solid.

NO.

Seriously, GIEFF, you're paraphrasing AGAIN.

Do NOT just "see bold below."

Read the entire quote

in the context in which it's presented instead of fixating on individual phrases that fit into your predetermined view of the situation.

The first paragraph: I am addressing BB's statement that he has no defense for his play up to that point, his assertion that he thinks Zilla is scum, and his hope that once he flips Town we'll lynch Zilla. I am attempting to refute this line of logic by pointing out that it's WIFOM, and I say that if we were to blindly follow this line of thought we'd be playing poorly as a Town. The "solid" part is referencing Panzer's "mistrust" of Zilla and, therefore, Panzer's case against Zilla, which I obviously don't put a lot of weight behind.

The second paragraph: pointing out that, since BB and Panzer were at the top of people's lists of suspects at that time, it was unlikely that their case against Zilla would be followed by the Town.

The third paragraph: I propose that, since Panzer is still one of the top suspects in my mind (as well as the minds of others, including yourself at that point), we ignore the BB/Panzer vs. Zilla WIFOM situation for now and instead concentrate on a lynch choice that is already well-established.

At no point do I say that BB is a poor choice for lynch; I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer. These are unrelated issues that you keep trying to link together, and they're not.

So I disagree with your assertion that you just found Panzer more scummy. This looks like process of elimination-type logic to me, with Panzer being the only one left. And I found it scummy because I don't agree at ALL with the logic you used to find the B_B lynch less "solid," and I get the feeling you don't either, especially based on your inability to be truthful about your reasons for unvoting.

This entire quote is bullshit. Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla. And I unvoted

in another post

because I thought Panzer was a better lynch choice and had asserted that I thought people should be voting for their first choice for lynch in a given Day and didn't want to be hypocritical. Are you now claiming that your carefully-built case about how Panzer lied and LAL is a good policy to follow is now somehow nullified, and therefore somehow I

shouldn't

have believed Panzer to be a good lynch choice for the Day?

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

I did not fail to answer it.

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It is relevant because I found it scummy. Yes, I genuinely believe you may be scum, as I said before.

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You find the conversation relevant to my scumminess because you find it scummy. I was asking you why you find it scummy.

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS:

please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess,

please

say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

[GIEFF]

I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer.

Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla.

Are you really trying to claim that the below quote by you is talking about a Zilla lynch, not a B_B lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for

your lynch

based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

You are talking about a B_B lynch here when you say "your lynch." You cannot convince me otherwise. You are talking about why lynching B_B is a bad idea here, too. You cannot convince me otherwise.

If you continue to try to do so, you are not being truthful, whether intentionally or not. Does ANYBODY think the above quote is NOT talking about reasons why a B_B lynch is less-than-ideal? Or even that it's not talking about B_B? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?


So I will repeat the question; why did you immediately fall back to either me or Panzer/myko, ignoring B_B? Even if you really were talking about Zilla the whole time (which you obviously were not), you STILL decided to ignore B_B and focus on either me or myko/Panzer, even though B_B was who you were voting for at the time. This was the original point I raised back in Post 469.

Why did you try to make it a binary choice (read: false dilemma) between me and the myko/Panzer connection if B_B was still #2 on your scumlist? If you wanted to make it a binary choice, shouldn't it have been between B_B and Panzer?

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

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You find the conversation relevant to my scumminess because you find it scummy. I was asking you why you find it scummy.

I found it scummy because it looked like you threw up some horrible reasons for not wanting to pursue a B_B lynch, and because you disagreed so vehemently with me saying that you were pointing out reasons against a B_B lynch (which seemed clear as day to me, and still does, and should to everybody else, too).

I also didn't like your claims that you were not trying to lead the town, and the way you voted Panzer, as if you were trying to give an excuse for doing so. "Well, I said this, so I'd better be consistent; my hands are tied!" is the vibe I got from it.

Again, I don't think you are going to be the lynch for today, and I don't want you to be, but when I see scummy behavior, I'm not going to just ignore it. If I get killed tonight, I want this information out there for the town to analyze in my absence.

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

Zilla, you are very likely going to be lynched shortly, so if you are town, you should be trying to post as much as possible, getting people to react to the idea of your lynch, and answering people's questions. The more information we have about a lynchee the better, as you have said yourself.

You can start with my question about which points in my qwints case were valid, and why you don't have anything but a neutral read on him if you do indeed think they are valid.

[Zilla]

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS:

please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess,

please

say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

Join the club, Dour. I haven't had much time for anything due to large amounts of schoolwork, but Dour, this is exactly what's going on with my case. I explain every time where they are wrong, but they ignore it. :/

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

I'll check back tomorrow; if I'm still at L-2, I'll claim. I don't like that Birthday was in a similar situation and got off without a claim though, even when GIEFF (falsely) asserted that he was at L-2 when he was at L-3.

Again, I don't like how GIEFF and Goat jumped off of birthday because I jumped on. I'm seeing a false facade here.

On qwints:

He promised a read on Mykonian and failed to deliver, he promised a rereading of [your] misrepresentations and failed to deliver, and he generally doesn't have much input in the thread.

He replaced MacavityLock who argued to try hunting the SK instead of the mafia, and I find that highly suspect, for reasons we've been over many times before. In fact, he seems to be aware of the problem this causes, reading his third post, and tries to backpedal from that stance, though his second post pretty much hinges on Panzer arguing to lynch mafia over SK. Still, a possible misunderstanding.

Neither of them contributed much.

Points I feel are invalid:

It is also odd that you say mykonian and Panzer are the scummiest, yet you hop on the B_B wagon without presenting any original reasons, probably because it looks like an easy lynch.

Many developments and sparse activity make for the kind of play he's using, town or scum, and if he's town, it's an easy frame job for scum to pull off. When you read the post in the context of the situation, it's far less scummy, aside from his forgetting about Mykonian/Panzer.

In fact, almost all of your case on him is based on his inactivity and playstyle, which would be fixed with more contribution. Apply pressure might get him to post more, so we can actually have a valid opinon of him. Including MacavityLock, that position has contributed a total of 14 real posts (one of Macavity's is V/LA announcement, one is confirm, one of qwints' is an EBWOP, one is introduction, one is a "sorry, will read later.")

Speaking of "sorry, will read later." The last time we actually heard anything of importance from SpringLulliby was here. post 215, page

NINE

.

[Dourgrim]

I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer.

Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla.

Are you really trying to claim that the below quote by you is talking about a Zilla lynch, not a B_B lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for

your lynch

based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

You are talking about a B_B lynch here when you say "your lynch." You cannot convince me otherwise. You are talking about why lynching B_B is a bad idea here, too. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Yes, the last quote above is indeed referring to the BB/Zilla situation, but you're misinterpreting it. I'm merely suggesting that the entire situation be tabled in favor of what I believed was a stronger case. AT NO POINT do I say that lynching BB is a bad idea. Find ONE SENTENCE that clearly states that with none of your "this is what I think you're saying" spin on it.

And, for the record, your statement of "you cannot convince me otherwise" (used twice in the post) says to me, plain and simple, that you have no business playing Mafia. If you're really so tunnel-visioned that you can't possibly be swayed away from your preconceptions of what other people's words actually mean, you're a poor player, good logic or no. For the sake of argument I'm going to assume, however, that you are NOT a poor player and are instead trying to use this sentence to emphasize your convictions. There have to be better ways of expressing your convictions, GIEFF.

If you continue to try to do so, you are not being truthful, whether intentionally or not. Does ANYBODY think the above quote is NOT talking about reasons why a B_B lynch is less-than-ideal? Or even that it's not talking about B_B? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Parroting my call for other players to weigh in on the conversation with your witty sarcasm is unproductive. However, this actually

is

an accurate summary of your case for once, except that it's not the same as what you've been saying up to this point (surprise, surprise!). I

was

saying that I believed Panzer to be a more ideal lynch than BB, correct, but I was

not

arguing

against

a BB lynch; these are different and separate ideas. I felt that BB was a valid lynch choice but not the ideal one.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

That will answer about 80% of your questions in this regard, I think.

So I will repeat the question; why did you immediately fall back to either me or Panzer/myko, ignoring B_B?

I was not ignoring BB, I was suggesting we move away from it in favor of a more well-established case against Panzer.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

Even if you really were talking about Zilla the whole time (which you obviously were not), you STILL decided to ignore B_B and focus on either me or myko/Panzer, even though B_B was who you were voting for at the time. This was the original point I raised back in Post 469.

No, I didn't. I decided to table the Zilla/BB situation, not ignore it.

Why did you try to make it a binary choice (read: false dilemma) between me and the myko/Panzer connection if B_B was still #2 on your scumlist? If you wanted to make it a binary choice, shouldn't it have been between B_B and Panzer?

Because I was suggesting that we table (not ignore) the BB/Zilla discussion in favor of a more established case, which left me with two other cases I felt strongly about: you and Panzer/myko.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

I found it scummy because it looked like you threw up some horrible reasons for not wanting to pursue a B_B lynch, and because you disagreed so vehemently with me saying that you were pointing out reasons against a B_B lynch (which seemed clear as day to me, and still does, and should to everybody else, too).

OK, this makes sense to me: you disagreed with my logic and found it scummy (IMHO probably because of a failure in communication), but then you cheapen it with the part in parentheses, in which you seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

I also didn't like your claims that you were not trying to lead the town, and the way you voted Panzer, as if you were trying to give an excuse for doing so. "Well, I said this, so I'd better be consistent; my hands are tied!" is the vibe I got from it.

Again, stop laying your "vibes" on my posts and instead read them literally and in context; I think that will help greatly in our apparent failure to communicate.

Again, I don't think you are going to be the lynch for today, and I don't want you to be, but when I see scummy behavior, I'm not going to just ignore it. If I get killed tonight, I want this information out there for the town to analyze in my absence.

I agree that players shouldn't ignore "scummy behavior." I have a question in return, though: if you don't think I'm going to be the lynch for today, and you don't want me to be the lynch for today, why are you going so far out of my way to prove my scumminess?

[Zilla]

Dour, I noticed you had some false notions about me from some of your posts, and funnily enough, they're not even the same as Goat/GIEFF's notions.

Birthday wasn't ever my "top suspect," and I switched to him because he was another leading candidate, had a good chance to be scum, and him being scum would have partially absolved Goat of being scum from driving him so hard. Since Goat just wasn't looking like a lynch candidate (probably because we kept getting into quote wars, our arguments turned into my word against his, and it seemed like most of town were ignoring the quote wars where my case was detailed), I switched to Birthday in a two-fold benefit attempt at both lynching scum and getting further information about Goat.

[Zilla]

(realized "leading candidate" could be interpreted wrong, it's meant as "leading suspect")

[Zilla]

GIEFF: why do you think Qwints is a lynch candidate while Dour is not? Aside from your vote, neither have any votes on them.

[GIEFF]

I don't like that Birthday was in a similar situation and got off without a claim though, even when GIEFF (falsely) asserted that he was at L-2 when he was at L-3.

And I STILL don't think you should claim. We are still one short vote of a lynch. At no point were 7 people saying they would lynch B_B, and at no point have 7 people said they would lynch you. A claim is bad if we don't later lynch that person, as if more than one person claims, we may be unnecessarily revealing power roles to the scum. It makes sense to be sure we really have enough votes for a lynch to go through before a claim happens, right? And I believe you are still 1 vote away.

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

Yes, the last quote above is indeed referring to the BB/Zilla situation, but you're misinterpreting it. I'm merely suggesting that the entire situation be tabled in favor of what I believed was a stronger case.

And I feel you are linking B_B and Zilla unnecessarily. The original case on B_B, and the reasoning you presented at the time of your vote for B_B was not based on Zilla's alignment. The connection to Zilla was created by B_B himself, and you bought into it.

However, this actually is an accurate summary of your case for once, except that it's not the same as what you've been saying up to this point (surprise, surprise!). I was saying that I believed Panzer to be a more ideal lynch than BB, correct, but I was not arguing against a BB lynch; these are different and separate ideas. I felt that BB was a valid lynch choice but not the ideal one.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written? That will answer about 80% of your questions in this regard, I think.

Yes, I do, but you are descending into semantics now. As I said before, it doesn't matter how it's phrased; you listed some things, and then explained why those things made a BB lynch less-than-ideal. Whether you think it's a bad lynch or just a less-than-ideal lynch is not relevant to the point I was trying to make, which is why I said "whatever you want to call it." You're right that your actual position on B_B is important, and I'm sorry if I misrepresented it, but either way, it is not relevant to the general point I was making (which is summarized by my bolded sentence below).

Because I was suggesting that we table (not ignore) the BB/Zilla discussion in favor of a more established case, which left me with two other cases I felt strongly about: you and Panzer/myko.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

Yes, I do.

I still think B_B's Zilla-WIFOM should not have been enough to dissuade you from his lynch, if you were being genuine in your initial vote for him.

The WIFOM has nothing to do with the reasons you originally presented, and if you really thought he was scummy, I don't think you would have let WIFOM that he himself injected make you discount so heavily the fact that he refused to defend himself that you no longer feel he should be the lynch candidate for today, instead focusing on me and myko/Panzer.

Parroting my call for other players to weigh in on the conversation with your witty sarcasm is unproductive.

It may not be productive, but this is a game, and it should be fun. I'm trying to lighten the mood a bit.

OK, this makes sense to me: you disagreed with my logic and found it scummy (IMHO probably because of a failure in communication), but then you cheapen it with the part in parentheses, in which you seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Yes. Anybody who disagrees with me IS obviously wrong. When you said "your lynch" you were talking about B_B, and that is about as close to objective as it gets. You say now that you were talking about BOTH B_B and Zilla, which I can believe, but if you were to claim it wasn't about B_B, it would be an obvious lie.

I was not ignoring BB, I was suggesting we move away from it in favor of a more well-established case against Panzer.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

I understand it, but I disagree. You FIRST said we should move away from the B_B/Zilla situation, and THEN decided that all that was left was me and myko/Panzer. Focusing on Panzer was a result of taking your focus off of BB/Zilla. This is not at all the same as simply finding Panzer scummier. Your unvote of BB seemed to me to be based a lot more on flaws in the BB/Zilla case than new points in the myko/Panzer case.

Again, stop laying your "vibes" on my posts and instead read them literally and in context; I think that will help greatly in our apparent failure to communicate.

OK, I will try. I'm not sure how best to phrase it; would not using quotes be better? I try to link to the posts I'm referring to as much as possible, and I would put down exact quotes for every point, too, if it wouldn't clutter the posts more than they already are.


I'm hoping we can end the quote wars here. Here is my attempt at consensus:

You voted B_B. B_B presented WIFOM for Zilla. You felt this WIFOM was enough of a deterrent to either a B_B or Zilla lynch that you decided to focus on other leads that you yourself were more involved in creating, and that did not contain this degree of WIFOM. Therefore, you settled on Panzer being the best lynch choice for the day, and soon unvoted B_B to vote for Panzer.

Is that correct? The only problem I have with your behavior is the fact that the WIFOM was enough to get you to change your mind, but this is not so major a point that we should continue to quote-war each other. Can we agree that I find it mildly scummy, you think it isn't scummy, and move on? If you wish, I will let you have the last quote-war if I can restrain myself from responding.

[Dourgrim]

You voted B_B. B_B presented WIFOM for Zilla. You felt this WIFOM was enough of a deterrent to either a B_B or Zilla lynch that you decided to focus on other leads that you yourself were more involved in creating, and that did not contain this degree of WIFOM. Therefore, you settled on Panzer being the best lynch choice for the day, and soon unvoted B_B to vote for Panzer.

Is that correct? The only problem I have with your behavior is the fact that the WIFOM was enough to get you to change your mind, but this is not so major a point that we should continue to quote-war each other. Can we agree that I find it mildly scummy, you think it isn't scummy, and move on? If you wish, I will let you have the last quote-war if I can restrain myself from responding.

I agree with your boxed consensus (and note to self: remember that "area" tag for future use). We can also agree with your assessment of the situation and move on.

Thank you.

[Goatrevolt]

Join the club, Dour. I haven't had much time for anything due to large amounts of schoolwork, but Dour, this is exactly what's going on with my case. I explain every time where they are wrong, but they ignore it. :/

Funny. You occasionally pick out one aspect of the case on you and try to refute it. You've ignored quite a bit of the case against you.

GIEFF's attack on you is pretty much the exact same methodology he and goat are using on me; construct some kind of illogical fallacy (Your stance on Birthday, my stance on Birthday/Goat) and constantly assert that it is truth.

That's a lie. You have not once addressed my points about how your vote should have been on Birthday earlier. If we were using an illogical fallacy, you would be able to refute it. You haven't done so. You haven't even tried.

Again, I don't like how GIEFF and Goat jumped off of birthday because I jumped on. I'm seeing a false facade here.

I addressed this in an earlier post. One that you also ignored.

On Qwints: I basically agree with your summary. However, you don't give your stance on him at all. You summarize his play, but don't tell us how you personally feel about it, and whether or not you think he's scum or town.

On spring: I agree.

Birthday wasn't ever my "top suspect,"

You still haven't addressed any of my points regarding this.

-----

Regarding Dour/GIEFF. I think GIEFF has a point, but I don't think it's that big of a point. I don't really consider Dour much more likely to be scum because of it.

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: why do you think Qwints is a lynch candidate while Dour is not? Aside from your vote, neither have any votes on them.

I do not think qwints is a lynch candidate, although I do find his behavior scummy. I wanted to see how you would react to pressure on him (and also to see how he would react to pressure on himself), as this information will be valuable if you come up scum.

In fact, almost all of your case on him is based on his inactivity and playstyle, which would be

fixed

with more contribution.

Fixed for the town, fixed for scum, or fixed for qwints?

----------


Zilla, I still feel that you are today's best lynch, and you can consider my vote one of the 7 needed for a lynch, and one of the 7 needed to prompt a claim from you. This should answer others' questions about my qwints-vote, too.

I don't think Dourgrim is a lynch candidate either, and while I find some of his behavior scummy, the amount of conversation we generate is not directly proportional to the degree to which I think he is scum. He is not in my top 3, nor is qwints.


----

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a towny because the game dies before we can change.

What did you mean by this, mykonian? Were you referring to Zilla when you said "lynching a towny?"

[Zilla]

Goat, you want me to "nitpick" and "deflect" by answering your questions? Eh? I mean, pick a side here; either I point out how your arguments are invalid (apparently nitpicking or deflecting, depending on what day of the week it is) or I try to answer them without directly pointing out why your "information" is wrong (these are always, ALWAYS ignored). Either read my posts, or stop saying my responses are "deflection" and "nitpicking" when I point out why they are invalid.

So, what point about "how my vote should have been on Birthday earlier" are you talking about? Also, where's this explanation of ditching Birthday? I see this erroneous quote that shows you missed the intent of the post..

I don't like how they've

changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him

. That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying

I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

OMG OPINIONS CAN'T CHANGE LOL!

Bolded sections are contradictory. The first bolded section says that we changed our mind about Birthday

because

you voted him. The second bolded section says that we voted you

because

we changed our mind about Birthday. You're arguing two separate and contradictory reasons to try to call us scum.

Duh, they're contradictory. That was the point, I'm pointing out how your moves and reasons are contradictory. I vote Birthday because he's more likely to be lynched AND he is a valid suspect AND he gives information about you, and suddenly, Birthday's not the lynch anymore, and suddenly, all the suspicion you built up on Birthday is apparently vaporized because I voted for him, and somehow my vote on him is scummy because I'm trying to "appease" you.

unvote: Birthday
vote: Goatrevolt

I'm thinking by association here that Birthday is innocent, and Goat was initially trying to get him lynched, but he was afraid he'd be too accountable for the results. I don't know where GIEFF factors into this, considering he was very VERY softly involved in the Birthday push, but I'm reasonably certain that Goat's the most likely scum player given his constant skewing of facts.

On Qwints: I don't have a solid stance on him. He's only posted 10 times himself, and you want me to declare him either scum or town? Are you digging for information to use my alignment to chain-lynch another townie or what?





I would like a clear summary of your case on me, and yes, I'm going to "nitpick" it to point out the flaws. I don't think it's going to "convince" you otherwise, but I want to see how much of your case is still based on your skewed info. At the very least, it'll serve as a base to stop this "You didn't answer some vague argument that I'm not going to quote or link" business and ought to clear up a ton of misconceptions. In the off chance that you are town, it might help you at least realize how nebulous and unfounded some of these arguments are.

[Zilla]

Oh, and sorry to distract from matters, but

FOS: Mykonian

for the "lynching a townie" thing. His whole stance so far seems to be scum trying to gain the benefit from a town flip. It's blatantly obvious, to the point that I'd say he's my second suspect again.

[GIEFF]

Oh, and sorry to distract from matters, but

FOS: Mykonian

for the "lynching a townie" thing. His whole stance so far seems to be scum trying to gain the benefit from a town flip. It's blatantly obvious, to the point that I'd say he's my second suspect again.

This isn't the first time he had a "townie" slip (although people don't seem to think these are important, I very much do).

and about the picking on townies: that could be a scumslip. I would like to hear Panzers explanation of that (although I can imagine what his answer is going to be).

Yes that was the answer I would expect: it was the assumption that spring was scum that would make them town. As the whole post is build to accuse spring, the assumption is that she is scum. Could be a slip though, but it is not conclusive.

So mykonian agrees that "townie" slips can be scummy, unless they are part of another assumption, i.e. a "nested reality."

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch

.

This is you referring to Panzer.

You later said

Panzers townyness is now only implied by you being scum.

Bogus. Nobody can be so sure that someone is scum that they make nested assumptions based on the universe where that person is scum. But it is based on the assumption I am scum, which you said may explain away the scumminess of a "townie" slip.

Mostly, I need to see a scummy motivation behind it, and then I can agree voting for that person.

I just gave you scum motivations for her actions, and likewise showed the lack of possible town motivations. Thoughts on those?

I know I can't argue with this, but I have seen this too often:

two townies

that go after each other, pointing out that the other doesn't understand them the right way.

Goat and Zilla are townies, huh? Where is the assumption here? There is none. You yourself said this is a scumtell.

I would like a zilla-claim too. Otherwise we are just lynching a

towny

because the game dies before we can change.

The SECOND time you referred to Zilla as a towny. There is no nested assumption here, either.

This is stretching the limits of coincidence.


I believe mykonian flipping scum would make me quite confident that Zilla and Goat are town, and very confident that Panzer is town as well, even though I find two of these players so scummy right now.



And before you all say "slips are meaningless" let me point something out to you. With every single post mafia make, they are trying to hide the fact that they KNOW who is mafia and who isn't. EVERY time a mafia mentions Zilla, he KNOWS her alignment. It is not far-fetched to think that with thousands and thousands of words being written, two or three of them reveal the fact that the author knows more than he or she should. Calling someone a townie is NOT minor, especially when the SAME person is called town twice.