Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[springlullaby]

I'm pissed that people left Zilla of the hook. She's obviously the most scummy player in the game. I'm keeping my vote here.

Also, I'm not reading all these big post.

There is NO need for huge posts like this.

That's definite scumtell right there.

This is scum betting on natural townie resentment toward tedious long posts to get away with not paying attention.

Unvote Vote Panzer

[Dourgrim]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

[mykonian]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

Keep dreaming, it is not going to happen. Like we are going to lynch someone else then Zilla...

[PJ.]

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

[Goatrevolt]

If it's my reasons for voting Goat, he never answered for:

Being unaccountable.

I answered this point numerous times. You're accusing me of being unaccountable for not giving you a summary of the game, and later not providing my stance on Panzer. A summary has nothing to do with accountability, because I'm accountable for the stances I've taken summary or not. I wanted you to go back and read the game before having people influence you. The panzer point I'll address in a moment.

Trying to shut down information sources.

I answered this many times as well. I can't shut down information that is already in the thread. You wanted a summary of the game (in essence, people telling you what has happened thus far). A summary contains no new information, it's just a restating of old information. I can't shut down an information source when there is no new information.

Having to fight tooth and nail to get him to give his current account of players

. This is wrong. You asked me for my stance on MacavityLock. I told you to read the thread, where my stance was stated multiple times. You asked me for a current stance on Panzer. I linked to 295, which contained a current stance on Panzer. You then harassed me about it for a long time, so I finally wrote out my stance on Panzer. You commented "Finally Goat gives his stance" but yet didn't even realize that the stance I had written out was almost word for word a direct copy of the stance I had given you in 295. To me, that suggests you didn't even look at 295.

his hem-haw stance on Panzer (suddenly must be town because I'm scum, and because Panzer is voting for me).

I gave reasons for that. Want to dispute those reasons, or are you just going to attack stances without any underlying rationale for why they aren't right? And originally I had him as a scum buddy to you. That opinion has changed based on new information.

his chainsaw defense of both Panzer and Mykonian.

I don't think you understand what a chainsaw defense is. A chainsaw defense is when some attacks a player, and rather than defend that player, I instead discredit the attacker. Where have I chainsawed Panzer? Panzer's attacker was GIEFF. I have not discredited his Panzer case or thrown suspicion on him at all. You were attacking Mykonian. I defended specifically against your case on Mykonian (a defense you did not bother to address other than to toss suspicion on me for "chainsawing"), and I wasn't even attacking you at that point in the game. That's not a chainsaw defense...that's a defense-defense. What about my defense of Mykonian is a "chainsaw defense" while your defense of BB was not? What was scummy about my defense of Mykonian? You never addressed my points or my reasoning for thinking your case was poor, you merely dismissed it as scummy without underlying rationale.

[GIEFF]

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

Explain what you mean by spin doctoring, and show me exactly where I did it, and why it is spin doctoring.

You have gone back and forth between Zilla and B_B MANY times, so it's ridiculous for you to expect anybody to take you seriously when you say that Zilla is "obviously" the most scummy player in the game. That is my point.

[Goatrevolt]

Just because you wrote 10k words - with an incredibly high amount repetition - doesn't mean you aren't lazy in your scumhunting. From your last overview, all independent analysis of players had mostly town verdict. And all scum verdicts were associated to Zilla's alignment, and in a very vague fashion nonetheless. That just sucks: scumlinking is the most despicable form of scumhunting day 1, using them as more than possible indication is at best sloppy, at worst scummy.

You don't get it. My pressure on Zilla is scum hunting. I have "scum hunted" her to the point where I am convinced she is scum. You're now accusing me of being lazy because I have only focused my

recent

attacks on one player, who is ridiculously likely to be scum. That's not being lazy at all. That's being focused/singleminded, etc. and nobody has given me any indication why that is scummy. There's no good reason why I should ignore Zilla and consider other people to be scum, when I don't think they are anywhere close to Zilla's level.

Also, I don't know what your accusation about "mostly town" verdicts and other nonsense comes from. I was exceptionally clear in my post where I stood on everyone. Out of the 10 players besides me and Zilla, I listed 6 as town, 2 as "maybe" and 2 as scum. I didn't provide reasoning, but I wasn't vague. All of my reads are influenced by my stance on Zilla. They are not all based entirely on that. For example, I gave reasoning for why I believed Mykonian to be town completely independent of Zilla.

Scumlinking is not my form of scumhunting. You know this. My case on Zilla has absolutely nothing to do with scumlinking, so your accusation that I am using it as my method of scumhunting is wrong. I'm using logic/reasoning/evidence as my method of scumhunting. Links to Zilla is what comes next.

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

Yes, and that's one step too early which means that your one step means exactly nothing.

I never argued it meant anything right now. Do you see me pushing a lynch on Dour, or Qwints? No. I'm pushing a lynch on Zilla, who I think is scum.

Goat: I have read your case against Zilla, I think it sucks. The margin of errors in the possible meaning she could have intended with words like "hardly" and "outstanding" are such that your accusation of her lying reposes on very shaky grounds.

I think the meaning of "outstanding" is pretty freaking clear. Up to that point in the game, GIEFF had the single most outstanding case of the game with his case on Panzer. Zilla even noted that it was

possible

to attack GIEFF over tunneling on Panzer. It's not possible to attack someone over tunneling unless they have an outstanding stance. So when Zilla says that GIEFF didn't have any outstanding stances besides Dour, she's lying.

-----

GIEFF: You are taking panzer's posts out of context.

The first post where you note his opinion changing was a post where he was chronologically reading through the game. For him to jump on BB, but then later read a post that made him want to jump on Zilla instead isn't really suspicious. It's a chronological post, and his opinion will change as he reads newer posts.

When you discuss the 6 minute flip-flop, what you don't note is Zilla posting in between that period. In that post, she uses Mykonian mentioning the SK as a point against him, despite having previously said that the SK discussion was meaningless and a waste of time, etc. Panzer changed his mind as a direct result of that post, and he had a valid reason, which doesn't make it suspicious.

[GIEFF]

in post 67, panzer calms down. Till that point, I have seen not a single attack from GIEFF on Panzer, he was more questioning Goat and Dourgrim.

So? In what way is this scummy?

in post 82/83 GIEFF still attacks dourgrim, summarizes the activity in the game (he accuses a few people of (active) lurking) panzer is not mentioned, while it is clear GIEFF read the complete thread

So? In what way is this scummy?

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

I've read this a few times, and I'm confused at what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that I think that a jokepost means that there can't be a scumtell in it? The scumtell isn't the fact that it was or wasn't a joke-vote; it's the fact that Panzer lied about it.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Now that you realize you have made a mistake, do you think you could consider revising (I guess I should say re-revising) your opinion of what my case actually was?

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

This is very difficult to understand. I think the language barrier is a lot wider than I realized up until this point. Are you trying to say Panzer wasn't really lying?

Panzer lied, and it was obvious. He even said himself that my point was valid, and that he had to check if he was scum.

The fact that Panzer lied should not be disputed on page 33. It was resolved long ago. I don't know whether to attribute your views to the language thing, or to a conscious desire to try to shape the past to fit your current views.

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote
Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Yes, it very much follows. And again, this was practically PROVEN long ago, to the point that even Panzer agreed. Why do you still refuse to?


And I shouldn't even have to tell you why it follows, because PANZER ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE ASSUMED YOU THOUGHT I WAS ANTI-TOWN.

This is ridiculous, mykonian. Flat-out ridiculous. You have nothing. You are trying to argue that I am scum because I made an argument 30 pages ago that is 100% verifiably accurate, yet you STILL think is false.

Ridiculous.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt?

Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

What the hell? So you did see that post? And you are still arguing this? Your case on me is that you think the following quote is NOT Panzer saying that you called me anti-town?

Ridiculous.

I don't think anybody disagreed with my underlined question, yet here you are, doing it 30 pages later to try to justify your bogus vote.


------

GIEFF: You are taking panzer's posts out of context.

The first post where you note his opinion changing was a post where he was chronologically reading through the game. For him to jump on BB, but then later read a post that made him want to jump on Zilla instead isn't really suspicious. It's a chronological post, and his opinion will change as he reads newer posts.

When you discuss the 6 minute flip-flop, what you don't note is Zilla posting in between that period. In that post, she uses Mykonian mentioning the SK as a point against him, despite having previously said that the SK discussion was meaningless and a waste of time, etc. Panzer changed his mind as a direct result of that post, and he had a valid reason, which doesn't make it suspicious.

That's not relevant. The point I am making is that it is clear as day that Panzer should not think Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player, considering how rapidly he has switched his vote between them. The reasons for the vote changes are not important; what is important is the fact that Panzer claims he view on Zilla has never changed (even after saying she "genuinely" looks like a townie), and that Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player.

Calling it "misrepresentation" is deflecting from the point I am making. Go ahead, throw the quote in; it doesn't change my argument, it just dilutes it with un-related words.

[Goatrevolt]

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

[GIEFF]

Here are the differences, though: Mykonian debated the LAL thing with you and dropped it after you convinced him. Granted, he has gone back and argued it again a few times, but he is at least willing to debate it with you, and was (at least initially) willing to drop it when he was shown to be wrong. Zilla, on the other hand, merely brushed aside my points, and moved on to others. That difference is crucial.

I disagree. It was a LOT more than "a few" times. Just about every time I've had to re-explain myself, it has been on account of mykonian not understanding me.

And he was NOT willing to debate it with me. I tried to put it into 4 easy points, and he just ignored them, and STILL has ignored them. B_B tried to help him out by responding for him, but mykonian still hasn't mentioned them.

Mykonian: A
GIEFF: A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: no, you're missing my explanation of why A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: Read these posts where I show you how A is wrong.
Mykonian: Ok, I drop A. What about B, C?

Here is how I see it:

A = my actual reason for voting Panzer, including the somewhat detailed and subtle explanation about why lying about your reasoning for a vote is so scummy.
B = "We should lynch every player who lies, no matter how minor."


GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.



And if you think I am exaggerating the number of times mykonian said "B is wrong", here are hyperlinks:

GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.


And this is why I became upset. I should not have to repeat myself that often, language barrier or no.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm going to start working towards accomplishing a lynch for today.

Here is the current vote count to my understanding:

Zilla (4/7): BB, Goat, Panzer, Dourgrim
Panzer (3/7): Ting, Subgenius, Spring
Birthday (2/7): Qwints, GIEFF
GIEFF (1/7): Mykonian
Mykonian (1/7): Zilla

Not Voting: Militant

I doubt anyone who's name is not Zilla/Panzer/Birthday is going to get lynched today. With that being said, I'm interested in specific stances on those 3.

Militant

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Mykonian

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Zilla

: Out of BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 2? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

Ting

: I don't know why you are voting for Panzer. Are you still interested in his lynch? Why or why not? Out of BB/Zilla/Panzer, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer?

Qwints

: Your vote is on BB, but it's been a long time since you placed it, and I don't recall you discussing it much since then. Are you still interested in lynching him? Are you willing to lynch Panzer/Zilla? If so, in what order? Additionally, what happened to your original statement that Panzer/Mykonian were your top two?

GIEFF

: I assume BB is your top choice for a lynch based on your vote. Would you be willing to lynch either Panzer/Zilla? If so, what order?

Spring

: You stated that you are unwilling to lynch Zilla. Would you be willing to lynch either BB or Panzer in that case? If so, do you have a preference?

BB

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you also willing to lynch Panzer?

Panzer

: You've made it clear that Zilla is your lynch preference. Are you willing to lynch BB?

Dourgrim

: Stance made clear in Post 786.

Mod:

Are we getting a replacement for subgenius?

[GIEFF]

Goat, in my below post, I read you in iso, and realized I didn't answer the below 2 questions by you towards me:

What's the real reason you think she's town? I don't think these "issues with her wagon" are the real reasons you don't want to lynch her. Maybe this is what you are telling yourself is the reason behind it, but I would doubt this is the honest truth.

I think she is more likely to be scum than town. My "issues" were realized when both Panzer and Dourgrim jumped on the Zilla-wagon after I jumped off. Everything else followed from there.

I think you are a townie. Is that a scum slip? Or is that my opinion based on the evidence within the thread?

Of course that's not a slip. You are conscious of it. You say you think I am a townie.

Accidentally

revealing knowledge that a townie should not have is scummy; this should be an easy point to understand.

Now, on to the rest of my post.
-------

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

This reminded me of your behavior much earlier in the thread:


You defend Panzer
I say I don't like you defending Panzer
You admit you were a bit hasty in jumping to Panzer's defense.

After this, you make the below posts questioning Panzer:

149
165
240 - in this post, you say you you find Panzer scummy, but something seems off about the wagon.
In response to Zilla's prods, you write in 295 that your logic says Panzer is scummy, but your gut says he is not.

But after this point, you only mentioned Panzer in relation to Zilla (including saying he could be a scumbuddy in 564) until Panzer's 614, in which he says "we're overthinking this lynch" soon after I unvoted Zilla. He claims the timing is coincidence, but I don't believe him. Anyway, after post 614, you asked him a couple questions and got him to vote Zilla. Am I right in assuming that at this point, you still found Panzer scummy? And the fact that he apologized to you is still very weird to me. Why would he apologize to you?

And after you get Panzer to re-join the Zilla wagon, you don't mention Panzer again, until I ask you directly what you think of him and mykonian. You respond in 775 that you actually see Panzer as pro-town now, but your reasoning for this change in heart relates SOLELY to logic about Zilla.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?


Can you point to an example of you answering for another player that is NOT Panzer? I didn't find one in my iso-read of you (which was admittedly not completely thorough).

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: I assume BB is your top choice for a lynch based on your vote. Would you be willing to lynch either Panzer/Zilla? If so, what order?

I have actually been gravitating more toward mykonian lately. My lynch-desirability list keeps changing, but right now, I believe it is:

B_B...mykonian
Zilla...Panzer

Although looking at that, I realize that three out of the four players have pissed me off; Panzer is the only one that I don't have to worry about being clouded by my own emotions.

To be fair, as I said in my recent vote summary, ting's vote on Panzer is from post 38, and subgenius' vote was very old, too. Spring is the only vote that should really count.

So if we make it just between B_B and Zilla, I would prefer B_B, but in the interests of ending the day, I would not kick and scream against a Zilla lynch.



And ting, why the hell haven't you changed your vote since post 38? It is hard for me to believe that a player whose objective is to lynch scum would not use his vote.

[Goatrevolt]

Anyway, after post 614, you asked him a couple questions and got him to vote Zilla. Am I right in assuming that at this point, you still found Panzer scummy? And the fact that he apologized to you is still very weird to me. Why would he apologize to you?

At that point, yes. My series of questions to Panzer were "I think he is a Zilla scum buddy, so I'm probing him" questions. He stated strong support of the Zilla wagon, but wasn't on it. I wanted to see what he had to say about that.

As for the apology, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not reading it as a significant tell either way, really.

And after you get Panzer to re-join the Zilla wagon, you don't mention Panzer again, until I ask you directly what you think of him and mykonian. You respond in 775 that you actually see Panzer as pro-town now, but your reasoning for this change in heart relates SOLELY to logic about Zilla.

Back in the 300s, Panzer was roughly 3rd on my scum list. I thought the case against him was solid in terms of the logical inconsistencies. Some of his posts just struck me as town, though. I have a hard time explaining exactly what that factor is, but it was enough to keep me off his wagon. At that point, BB/Macavity were 1 and 2, and Panzer was 3. From that point on, even though I thought Zilla was town, Panzer's attack on Zilla also seemed pro-town. He was voting on and off as a result of new evidence. His original vote on Birthday was what caused me to go back and look at Birthday myself, and I agreed with his point. Panzer seemed to be taking solid stances and making legitimate points. Panzer was still around number 3 for me, but I didn't really consider him a lynch option anymore. I was far more interested in Birthday.

Once I started to see Zilla as scum, I saw Panzer as a scum buddy. That wasn't directly related to anything Panzer did, but more my interpretation of Zilla's actions. Panzer's on/off of the Zilla wagon seemed reasonable. The reason I saw him as a scum buddy was because of Zilla's actions. She had Panzer as a consistently scummy target, but was interested instead in attacking me and Mykonian, and partially because we were "defending" Panzer. I found it odd that she was so hardcore about people defending Panzer but she never really bothered to attack him herself. It kind of struck me how scum will see someone sticking up for their scum buddy and will want to point out how anti-town they are for sticking up for scum, but yet they can't reveal they know that player is scum.

Then there was post 614, my questioning of Panzer to see where he stood on Zilla. I didn't really learn anything from that. He responded basically how I expected him to respond. I changed my mind on him because of his "I won't participate until Zilla claims" stance. First of all, I see it as less likely that scum take that stance in the first place, because it is a really easy for people to put suspicion on them for that move. Panzer as scum would be tossing himself in the spotlight there for little real gain. Secondly, scum don't really want to lynch their scum buddies. If Zilla is scum, as I believe, then Panzer is going above and beyond the scumbuddy call to bus. He'd be looking for opportunities to get off the wagon, not making ultimatums that we either lynch his scum buddy or he stops contributing.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?

I mention that above. His stances on BB/Zilla have been reasonable, and have come on and off based on changes in evidence. I'm not seeing any hidden motives behind it. I actually view his "Not participating until Zilla claims" bit as a less likely move for scum to make. And then there is my opinion on Zilla.

Can you point to an example of you answering for another player that is NOT Panzer? I didn't find one in my iso-read of you (which was admittedly not completely thorough).

I can only think of two times this game that I answered prior to letting the player answer themselves. One was that time with Panzer, and the other was me defending against Zilla's initial case on Mykonian.

I let Panzer answer first for your recent attack before giving my opinion, and I let Mykonian answer recent attacks first, before jumping in to say that you were attacking him for bringing up LAL, when he was just answering Zilla's question about it.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

[GIEFF]

GIEFF: Do you think BB and Zilla make sense as scum buddies?

No, I don't. Zilla's behavior toward B_B looked like a scum toward her buddy (i.e. saying she found him really scummy, but not voting for him and instead focusing on you), but B_B's behavior toward her does not.

But I also very much doubt they are town buddies. I think it is more likely they are town buddies than scum buddies, but it's still much more likely that they are not of the same alignment.

Back in the 300s, Panzer was roughly 3rd on my scum list. I thought the case against him was solid in terms of the logical inconsistencies. Some of his posts just struck me as town, though.

Fine, and this is consistent with what you said in the past. Let's call this "A."

Once I started to see Zilla as scum, I saw Panzer as a scum buddy. That wasn't directly related to anything Panzer did, but more my interpretation of Zilla's actions.

Let's call this "B."


So, Panzer was 3rd on your scumlist, and seen by you as scummy, due to A. Then, you discovered B. Then, you discounted B. Shouldn't that leave you just with A? When explaining why you found Panzer pro-town, you just mention why B is not valid. This reminds me of B_B's dismount from the Panzer wagon; he said that he didn't like my later points, which negated the earlier ones.

Can you go into more detail about what PANZER has done to appear more pro-town recently, without any mention of Zilla? Your initial reasons for being suspicious of Panzer had nothing whatsoever to do with Zilla, yet the reasoning you present for now finding him pro-town only refuted your much-later "scumbuddy" charge. What about all the earlier stuff?

I mention that above.

I disagree. According to your "Back in the 300s" paragraph, even after Panzer made good points about B_B, he was still 3rd on your scumlist, so his pro-town actions had to have occurred AFTER this point. And your next two paragraphs have a "too-scummy" WIFOM fallacy, and relate solely to Panzer's behavior through your Zilla-is-scum lens (i.e. they don't relate to "A").

[Goatrevolt]

So, Panzer was 3rd on your scumlist, and seen by you as scummy, due to A. Then, you discovered B. Then, you discounted B. Shouldn't that leave you just with A? When explaining why you found Panzer pro-town, you just mention why B is not valid. This reminds me of B_B's dismount from the Panzer wagon; he said that he didn't like my later points, which negated the earlier ones.

That's ignoring C: my opinion of Zilla affecting my read of Panzer, and D: My "too scummy fallacy" as you choose to put it.

I have A (logic inconsistencies vs. gut). Then there is B (scum team). Then I discount B, creating C (not scum team). Then there is D (his Zilla-claim stance not being the percentage play for scum).

So it's not just A. It's A, C, D.

Regarding the "too scummy" fallacy, that's not what I'm arguing at all. From my perspective, Panzer's aggression towards Zilla is not scummy. I'm arguing that his play put him needlessly in the spotlight, and thus is something scum are less likely to do than town. Scum don't want attention. Panzer doing that is bound to bring him attention (as it has).

[Zilla]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

[Zilla]

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

[Goatrevolt]

Once again, I've disproven allegations that I lied, nobody has pointed out where I lied, and yet, goat says I'm still scum. I thought that was a huge point of his case on me, that I kept going after him after his points were disproven?

I'm very busy and shouldn't be posting as it stands, and I really want to read Panzer, but that will have to wait until I get my assignment completed and submitted.

I can never "prove" anything. All I have is what I think makes sense. And I don't think your claim that GIEFF had no outstanding stances besides Dour, and that's why you viewed him as town makes sense. You noted his stances on BB and Panzer in previous posts. Therefore it stands to reason you knew he had more stances that just Dour. I think you were lying about the reasons you had GIEFF and Dour as top townies.

I point this out at the top of Post 769. Any response?

I also feel that you are dishonest in your suspicions and voting. I don't think your vote changes have reflected periods where your suspicions legitimately changed as much as periods where Zilla needed a different vote. Why did you recently unvote me? You just finished making a huge post about how I "misrepresented" you.

RE: Goat's latest post; reading Panzer's move as town only applies if you consider me confirmed scum. If you remove thinking I'm scum from the equation, his demands for a claim are scummy for the same reason as Mykonian's, albeit without the addition of asking for a claim when he doesn't want to lynch me.

They are scummy in terms of a "here's a list of 24 common scum tells, it's on that list" mentality. I don't think it's scummy in that I don't think it makes him more likely to be scum, regardless of your alignment. Admittedly, it's not a huge point, but I simply think it's less likely he makes that play as scum than town.

-------

I just read through all of Mykonian's posts. I really don't think he is scum.

[GIEFF]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

[Beyond_Birthday]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF

solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you.

But I didn't deny this. Honestly, I was half assing this game and not paying much attention until whenever it was I was bandwagoned by Goat.

And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid

When you see someone surrender and acknowledge the point, you don't bring it up again and again and again. THAT IS stupid.

and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.

All true...? What's your point?

2.1 is not an exit clause.

It can still be treated as an exit clause, no matter what you claim it is supposed to be.

It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.

If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right?

False.

Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.

Granted, but again, your reasoning only looks at one possibilty. You could give scum buddies an out if they make it look like they were proven wrong and admit it and appear townie for being able to acknowledge their error. It CAN be used as an exit clause. I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.

What? You know what, no...no. I just don't fucking care anymore. You are so illogical... *Takes your wrists, slices open the skin, and lets the blood flow out.* I refuse to drink this because it is obviously infected with stupidity.
Just because you make a strong case against someone does not clear you from being their scum buddy.

None of them, specifically. They are excellent points, and I think Zilla is scum.

And you are not voting Zilla because...? What? Is the cage too small you have no choice but to wither from an attempt at following through with your thoughts?

Beyond_Birthday 100%, obv sk. (This is a joke.)
Zilla - 54%
Dourgrim - 38%
GIEFF - 49%
Goatrevolt -29%
qwints -46%
militant - 32%
mykonian -40%
Panzerjager - 39%
springlullaby - 35%
subgenius - 36%
ting =) - 36%

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

Goat

Here are the percents of scumminess all have. These assume 0 is perfectly town and scum is 100

[GIEFF]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

It was meant to contrast your refusal to respond to points I've made.

I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

I have not done this. If scum think I have, then that's all the better for me. I was asked to explain my reasoning and I did. This is not EVERYTHING I find scummy about ALL cases on ALL mafia players. It is just related to why I think Panzer's lie about his random vote was scummy.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. My point is a lot simpler than this. Townies base their votes on evidence, logic, reasoning, and gut. Scum do not; they fake these things in order to look townie. That's it.


Your behavior can't be explained away so simply. You were lying. A "yes, that was scummy" defense might work for other people here, but it doesn't for me, especially when you fought a similar claim that your play had been scummy tooth and nail. I just can't see a townie playing that way.

[Goatrevolt]

Do you find lack of scumhunting to be scummy, Goat? Do you think mykonian has done an adequate job of scumhunting today?

Yes, and yes.

By that second yes, I'm not saying Mykonian has really put out a lot of pressure in order to catch scum, but I do feel like he has been legitimately trying to figure out people's alignments.

[Goatrevolt]

Zilla, 2 things:

On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.

First, this doesn't seem to jive with your play this game.

Explain to me:

Your vote change to BB from me back in post 544. What, specifically, at that point in time made you think BB was a better place for your vote to be?

Your recent unvote on me. What specifically made you feel your vote was no longer worthwhile being on me. You had just finished a monster of a post, where you accuse me repeatedly of misrepresentations and strawmanning a strawman definition, etc. What about that caused you to unvote me?

Secondly, I want you to explain this: Here you mention that Birthday-scum would partially absolve me of being scum. Yet, here you say you suspect 2 or 3 of Me, GIEFF, Birthday to be scum. What was the difference. Why at one point am I not likely to be a scum buddy to Birthday, but at another point I can be one? Furthermore, in that 2nd post, you note that Birthday is your most likely to be scum out of us 3, yet in the first linked post you state that Birthday wasn't your top suspect, I was. Those are two contradictory ideas.