Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[RedCoyote]

Vote Count 4

• Beefster

  (Neruz - Kayi)
  
  
  Neruz
  (Mute)
  
  
  Mute
  (Jay)
  
  
  Jay
  (Yenros)
  
  
  Kayi
  (Beefster)
  
  
  Not Voting
  (Mastin - Trendall - Mujex)

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.
Current Deadline: Nov. 17th, 2010 at 12:00 AM (CST)

[Yenros]

@ Kayi and Jay: I think you (Kayi) misunderstand. I'm not getting on him for just responding, I can understand getting on only after being addressed, because I only get on about once a day, and in 24 hours someone has typically said something to respond too. I'm saying he merely came in and random voted with no content after the rest of the town has started moving to content such as Beefster's voting you. When I'm on, yes I defend my self, but I'm also trying to find scum, and not focused only on a defense. And on that note...

@ Mute: At first you would seem like someone who needs to be replaced, but you are actively lurking. You only posted when someone mentioned you might need a prod or replacement, and despite what has come up you don't say anything about any of it.

FoS Mute

@ Jay (again): Your last argument on me is, like Mastin said, a "too townie for town" argument, and that doesn't mean anything because townies act like townies, and when you said "I've seen it before," that doesn't mean it applies to all cases, because, again, townies will also act like townies. You are applying an aspect of both groups to just one. That's like saying about humans "I've seen woman who talk, you are talking, so I think you are a woman."

[Beefster]

@Mastin, Trendall, and Mujex: Who is your biggest suspect? Why aren't you voting?

Of these three, I'm most wary of Mastin. How can he possibly not have a clear cut opinion after all these walls of text?

FoS: Mastin

[Jay]

@Yenros: Your reply to the "too townie to be town" argument does make sense, and while I still do not entirely understand how my vote seems scummy, that might just be me.

@Beefster: Mujex isn't playing anymore, I don't think.

[Kayi]

Mastin

, as you said, I think my case against Beef is pretty solid. To me it's so obvious that keeping to point it out seems redundant. I might be wrong on that though. On the agreeing thing, I don't see how that could be perceived as me going buddybuddy on you. I simply said that I understood your reasoning but that it didn't indicate the truth, and I proceeded to explain why. On Neruz and our suspicion/vote... I said that Beef's reasoning was weird, then Neruz mentioned the escape route. After a response from Beef, I voted, and a page later Neruz finally said openly that he was going to keep his vote. That's where both lines were crossed. Finally, your SE-ish advice is really useful and it addresses some of my concerns. But I'm afraid that discussing it (which I want to do) would bring meta too heavily into the game. I don't want to use "mistake due to newbieness/badplay on my part" as an argument. Ever.

Neruz

, what I said on my last post was exactly what I meant. The only inactivity I pointed out as such was Mute's. Who now admitted to lurking, by the way. I don't like that

Mute

didn't say anything of content whatsoever when he did come around. Definitely keeping an eye on this one.

Jay

and his excuses aren't very good. The Phantom Vote thing doesn't seem genuine. I'm not sure he's scum, only at an IGMEOY/FoS level, but I do think he's lying on that respect. Also, his FoS at Yen seemed too much like an OMGUS suspicion. I still don't get how his vote was scummy, but he's letting Yenros build a good case against him so I'll let it rest. Speaking of which,

Yenros

starts to seem genuine, but definitely still not obvtown.

[Mastin]

And, as promised, I'm here at 3:30.

I'm still here. The name "Mute" isn't just a name, it has some relevance to my personality. If I see a time to talk or say something I will, like if I'm addressed (like now) or would like to add something to the discussion.

Ah, yes, this. Something I wrote two SE paragraphs on, but lost.

[SE]

Honest? I believe you. I have no problem with your posting style, and fully understand it. To some extent, I have that style as well. I try to only talk about relevant things, and otherwise, tend not to post as to avoid cluttering the thread. However, most people won't be so understanding, Mute. Most people--when they see a person who doesn't post--will point it out, and be weary if they show up immediately after that. Made worse when that note is accompanied by suspicion (AKA, you're coming back to put their suspicions to rest), and if you address that you came back

because

of the inactivity suspicion, because it encourages them to push for your lynch when you're inactive. It's such a common tell that we have a word for it: Lurking. Now, I personally don't use lurking as an argument against someone. (That would be very hypocritical of me, considering I used to do it as both alignments.) However, most people will react

extremely

negative to lurking, some to the point of policy lynching them. (Depends on what kind of lurking. I have three categories: Active [posting, but not posting content], passive [online, but not posting or even checking the thread], and regular [checking the thread, but not posting]. Which is the worst depends on who you ask, but nobody likes any of them.)
So, Mute, I'd advise against continuing that strategy. Try to become more active. There's almost always something to say, even if you don't think there is. New information pops up every time someone posts.

[/SE]

I'm suspicious of a few people here, but for now I want to see how things unfold before I begin to make any decisions for one set person to vote on.

SE teachings, part two:

[SE]

Now, there's nothing wrong with this, however, I'd advise against it. The scum hunter's most treasured prize is information. One of the scum hunter's greatest tools in gathering information is getting reactions. Now, you

can

get reactions, from not voting, stating suspicions, or giving reasons. However, in general, you get a

lot

more information if you do. Votes are a good example. It's a common tactic to vote without a reason, to look for a reaction--I would highly advise you don't do this until you have more experience, as it's easy to say that voting without a reason means you didn't have a reason and when you

do

state your reason, they'll call it BS'd. (A simple way of getting around this: "VOTE: X; I have a reason, but I'll wait for a/some response(s) before I state them." Doesn't always work, though, so again, it's a tactic you should learn how to use...but not use it unless you think you can pull it off.) However, the most common way of gathering reactions is to have both a reason and a vote. These are the goldmines. Not only does it let other pro-town players know who you think is scum, should you perish, it ALSO gives people a LOT of material to work with when responding.
So, I would encourage you to vote/state your suspects, and explain why. However, it is up to you. Maybe you not stating them is you looking for responses, for example. So, it's your choice, but as an SE, I'd recommend you do state your suspects.
...Especially considering how you were just accused of lurking, and are gathering some amount of suspicion. A vote with a strong reason can go MILES to convince someone you're town surprisingly often.

[/SE]

(Dang, the original version was more concise.)

I've seen the strategy that I mentioned (I think you called it Too Town to be Town) work before

If by this, you mean me talking about a player looking so town they can't possibly be town, well, think about that. If someone is trying hard and the result is that they look like town, they're likely to be town. It's

possible

they're scum, sure--but anything would be possible. Anyone could be any alignment. So, that's why we rely on things such as probability and logic. Both dictate that someone who looks like town...is most likely to be town. If by chance, they

are

scum, they're doing a darn-good job at it. Players like that are one in a hundred, I'd guess.

---

On to page five.

@Mastin: Who is your biggest suspect? Why aren't you voting?

I will respond to that question with one of my own:

HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY POSTS?!?

>_<
Really, I'm not sure I could make it more clear who my suspects are:
You, and Kayi/Neruz. I haven't voted, yet, because I'm having trouble deciding which among you is the most likely to be the scum. Right now, Neruz is looking better. Kayi and you? Not so much. If you were paying attention, you would've realizes that, yes, I DO have an opinion on who's scum: YOU.

BUT

, my scum read on Kayi is just as strong. I don't think you're both scum, so I'm trying to figure out which of you two is more likely to be scum. I haven't made up my mind, yet, because you're that equal to Kayi. Logically, you're about equal. Initially, my gut said you, but then came the idea of the Kayi-Neruz theory of mine, which my gut

really

liked. So, instincts refuse to make up their mind, and currently, intuition is equal. One of you or Kayi will eventually tip logic's scale to one side or the other. And that's what I'm waiting for. I'm getting as many reactions from both of you as I can. I'm observing you two more than most (though as you can tell, I am not tunneling on just you two). I'm trying to figure it out. And that's why I haven't voted yet. If I had one clear-cut suspect, believe me, I'd be voting them. As I've got two, I cannot.

Oh, and Kayi?
Just made me feel a lot better about her, here. I'll go back. Check the whole thread again, one more time, look for anything I could've missed, but from what I've seen, Kayi has defended herself far better than you have, Beefster.

Vote: Beefster

.

[Mastin]

Heh. Took me half an hour to write this. Anyway, minor Edit BWOP: "Honest" should be "Honestly" when I'm giving my SE advice to Mute to not lurk.

[Neruz]

Also, since i noticed a point of contention between Mastin and Kayi is when my vote on Beefster stopped being random, there wasn't really any one point. It was random when i placed it, and not random when i left it on him on page 4, but there was no one post i can point to and say "Here is where i changed my mind and decided to vote Beefster properly." It was a gradual change over the course of several posts.

Mujex apparantly asked for a replacement, so i'm going to UNVOTE: Beefster until said replacement turns up.

[Mute]

The one thing I've noticed that stuck out to me was Yenros. Initially (as from page 2's initial post), he posted in what appeared to me to be a passive-aggressive manner, and after suspicion was placed onto them he seemed to shift into a more defensive posting style. The wavering resolve I feel is something that should be addressed, or at the very least kept in the back of my mind. And even when accused by Jay I don't feel his response was adequate enough for me to have any less suspicion of him.

Beefster's been erratic as well it'd seem, but they claim to have meta supporting their voting pattern. While I can say that that's a safe enough of a net (the forum I played the game on before has several people whom follow patterns of acting as well) for me to not fully suspect them, even nets have holes, and just that alone isn't a good enough of a stopper for me to be wary of them. I don't feel it should fall on the players to use past games for making a judgment on whether a person is or is not mafia. And if it was just a simple slip-up, then he'll just have to live with it. *shrug*

Also, this was said by Kayi as well: "Also, go back and read my posts. I do not only address people who address me. I mostly do so, but when there's nothing new that strikes me as scummy/odd, I don't see why I shouldn't do this." I can see why people are focusing on me for lurking which I'll try to avoid (the deadline for this game is the 17th, where the games I've played had each day and night cycle last only 24 hours or until majority is reached/all the night actions have been sent in. More a culture shock than anything), but this is more how I play. I observe others, see how a discussion is started and by whom, how everyone reacts to it, gauge their reactions, so on and so on, compare their posts to their responses and accusations, and prefer to let others do the talking so that when I do post, it's either to bring to the table my own observations, or expand upon what people've already posted.

Right now, though, to just get this across, here's who I suspect in order of suspicion:

- Yenros
- Beefster
- everyone else
x myself

[Beefster]

@Mastin: tl;dr (don't do this, kids. I'm a hypocrite)
I'm an engineer. Concise. To-The-Point. Complete. (Though it's a little different when I make stuff) I couldn't write more than 5 pages of a story if I tried. Though I do spend a lot more time on posts than I should need to.

@Kayi: your case is the same as it's ever been. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been added. I'd hardly call it solid.

[Trendall]

I'm having computer issues at the moment, which is why I've been a bit subdued for the last two days, but I will post something useful with some content in it tomorrow.

[RedCoyote]

Lateralus22 replaces Mujex

[Kayi]

Neruz, again, what I said in my post is what I meant. I word things the way I word them for a reason. I don't know how your mind works, and I only know what shows up on the thread. You had expressed suspicion so far and I do see it as a gradual thing, but your vote was very much in the air until you declared that you were keeping it. That's where a line was visibly crossed. Only you know what you think; we can only see what you write.

Beefster, your aggressiveness and not wanting to recognize that I've made a -if not good, definitely not completely bad- case against you is not making you look better. I'm not saying anything else because your attitude is saying it all.

Mute, Meta says nothing. I read a few of Beef's post. For what I could gather, there were some crazy votes, but there were some that struck me as logical. I got an idea of what his playstyle is. It really changed nothing. He used his Meta to support his innocence. If I used his Meta to make arguments, there are things to support his scumminess as well. As I said before, I'm strongly against bringing Meta too heavily into the game anyway.



I'll be V/LA from tonight or tomorrow morning (haven't actually decided) until Saturday night or Sunday afternoon, depending on my level of tiredness when I get home. All Jewish Timezone. Real life has suddenly gotten exciting and interesting. Yay weekends.

[Kayi]

Also, hi Lateralus22! Any outsider-until-now thoughts?

[Mastin]

Got about an hour until I have to leave, so I won't be able to do a reread to confirm what everyone has been saying about their play on previous pages, not yet, anyway. However, I can respond to what's been posted so far since I left, to make my reread post as uncluttered as possible. (I, too, like conciseness--simply because I want what I type to be read. )

---

Mujex apparently asked for a replacement, so i'm going to UNVOTE: Beefster until said replacement turns up.

1: Why the unvote for a player completely unrelated to Beefster? 2: Now that we have a Mujex replacement, will you be voting for Beefster, again?

The one thing I've noticed that stuck out to me was Yenros. Initially (as from page 2's initial post), he posted in what appeared to me to be a passive-aggressive manner, and after suspicion was placed onto them he seemed to shift into a more defensive posting style. The wavering resolve I feel is something that should be addressed, or at the very least kept in the back of my mind. And even when accused by Jay I don't feel his response was adequate enough for me to have any less suspicion of him.

This is an interesting view. I'll need to look at this when I do my reread, but in the mean time,

Yenros:

it'd be nice to address Mute to the best of your ability. (Reactions are what we need most.)
Mute might already know this, but in case he or anyone else doesn't:

[SE]

For reference, quote tags are handy.

Code: Select all

[quote]This is stuff appearing inside the quote.[/quote]And this is stuff outside the quote. [quote="Insert Name Here"]This is how you do a named quote, as you often see in posts.[/quote]It ends the same way. Also, links to posts are nice. See the little icon in the corner?

is an unread, and is a read post. That icon: right click it. Depending on the browser, the command differs, but in Firefox, it's "Copy Link Location". The result: This is a link to RC's Mod post at the beginning of the page.

Code: Select all

[url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=2606819#p2606819]This is that same link.[/url] You can combine these two as you might've seen in my posts. [quote="[url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=2606819#p2606819]RC[/url]"]Vote Count Here[/quote] is how it works.

Just a few tips. None of it is necessary, but people tend to prefer quotes over quotation marks. The exception seems to be portions of a sentence: You said, "I don't understand" in quotes is cluttered. I said "This is a paragraph example. A small paragraph, granted, but nonetheless an example of why we have the quote button instead of constantly needing quotation marks. It's a very handy button. Quick reply no longer has the "Quote Selected" button it used to have, and even if it did, it wouldn't include the name, but with the above, you don't have to quote a whole post. You can instead quote a fraction, like I've done." Now, imagine how much easier that would be in quotes.

[/SE]

Sorry it's a bit long, but if there's one thing I'm good at in forum games, it's being thorough.

I observe others, see how a discussion is started and by whom, how everyone reacts to it, gauge their reactions, so on and so on, compare their posts to their responses and accusations, and

prefer to let others do the talking

so that when I do post, it's either to bring to the table my own observations, or expand upon what people've already posted.

[SE]

This is good! It's an excellent way to play, and if you can adjust to MS's site meta, you'll be an excellent player; I can tell. With...one small exception: the bolded. Now, letting others do the talking is fine. If you're the only one posting, chances are, you're posting too much. Others do, indeed, need to talk, so I can understand not posting very often. However, you should try to get at least one game-related content-filled post in a day. It doesn't have to be much. A one-liner will do, sometimes, if it's a good reaction-getter. The fact is, you'll get more pro-town feedback if you partake in discussion more often. If you keep your thoughts to yourself for too long, then you don't get anyone else chiming in.
It's a balance thing you find, eventually. It's definitely fine to keep a few observations to yourself. (For example, Sometimes, you might not have anything and you can use that observation as a content post while you try to think of other things.) However, you also need to keep in mind, you're only one person, one out of--in this case--nine. You have eight others you need to have interactions with: keeping an eye on everyone, trying to get feedback from everyone, etc. And others will be doing the same for you: they expect you to give your opinion on what they say, they will be watching you, etc.
Not sure I can help you any further, on the matter. Hope this helps.

[/SE]

Beefster: Well, you could look at the SE portions if you want to make sure I'm not teaching them wrong, but you don't have to. The game-related parts were addressing Jay, and you. The part about Jay is mainly showing how his logic of his suspicion is flawed, so you don't have to go over that, either.
I mainly address your question about why I hadn't voted: split suspicions, between you and Kayi. Kayi made me feel better; you, less so, so I voted you. You can make me feel better by putting your best effort into defending yourself against every point you can think of. When I do my reread, I'll be looking mainly at both you and Kayi. If what you say matches better than what Kayi says, my vote would change. But so far, Kayi is looking better.

---

Anyway, that's in. Again, I apologize for the length. The Inner SE within me likes to teach a lot.

[Lateralus22]

Woo, so much irrelevant theory discussion on the starting pages.

#53 (Beefster): The hell, how is

alignment

fishing "not as bad"?

Its not bad at all

. With that logic scum hunting is bad too since we're looking for scum AKA people with the scum alignment.

#56 (Kayi): What's the prove your innocence line about? You're not in any danger of being lynched. Why didn't you voice all your concerns in this post instead of making a case later on? Nothing new IIRC was brought out at that point.

#62 (Mastin): Is it normal for you to be act so personal? Question, did you think your crossed out text was worth enough to post, if so then why discredit it as WIFOM and cross it out?

#64 (Neruz): Hi Neruz. Can you explain the last bit? He hardly placed it to look like it meant something. You are talking about Jay right?

#65 (Kayi): Wee a reaction. What took you so long?

#67 (Beefster): Ah cute. For an IC you're awfully misinformative. What's that about this whole excitement thing being useless? Uh huh, look here at a game where the IC was able to deduce who BOTH scum were with questions of similar nature being a factor in that.

#68 (Beefster): Is there any pro-town meaning to those specific actions?

Note

: Mastin can you PLEASE keep your walls a little more concise? I have no idea what point you're trying to make half the time when what you type is drowned in borderline IoA.

#89 (Jay): Way to be selective. If anyone's trying way too hard it one of the Walls of Text posters so why not voice suspicions on them?

#91 (Mute): Yeah um, no. We shouldn't have to be wondering where the hell you are half the time.

Vote: Kayi

Case and shit later. A few more things that need direct attention.

@Beef

Did you think

alignment

fishing was legit scummy?

@Mute

Put a vote on someone, I don't care how sure of you are of your read, just take a stand. Voting is a great part of voicing your opinion and allows town to get a better read on you.

@Trendall

What's with the lack of vote? Why would you be handing out an FoS instead of a vote? Also what have you learned specifically regarding peoples' alignments via your questions?

Note: Haven't completely read page 5, but PLEASE Mastin keep all this SE teaching nonsense down, I didn't think you'd keep this up the whole game.

[Mastin]

Nice catch-up post.

[1]Is it normal for you to be act so personal? [2] Question, did you think your crossed out text was worth enough to post, if so then why discredit it as WIFOM and cross it out?

[1]Huh? How so? Don't see how that was very personal at all. You're going to have to be more specific and say what exactly in there you see is personal. [2] It was discredited because it was invalid, but not due to WIFOM--due to Neruz having past game experience, which the whole thing relied on. I felt the info in there was good, if a bit irrelevant. (In hindsight, that probably just made it unnecessarily wordy.) Basically, my logic was: had I posted that, I wouldn't've been able to edit it later and cross it out. It would've been there for all to see; I would've had to later correct myself, as I did. If I wouldn't have been able to edit it out normally, why would I want to make it special by having the chance to edit it out? Or something like that. I'm a bit braindead right now, and I think I was then, as well. Anyway, again, the info looked good, albeit not required, so I kept it in there.

[1]Mastin can you PLEASE keep your walls a little more concise? [2]I have no idea what point you're trying to make half the time when what you type is drowned in borderline IoA.
[3]PLEASE Mastin keep all this SE teaching nonsense down, [4]I didn't think you'd keep this up the whole game.

Hmm, where to start? [1] Sorry, bad habit. Old habits die hard. Earned my title for a reason. I am trying, mind you, to keep it down, and am one of the major advocates for shorter posts. (I'm just not personally very GOOD at it. ) [2]I don't really see any IoA, except for possibly the SEssions. (:P) If you see a non-SEssion borderline-IoA which seems to pop up, though, I'd like to know about it.
[3]Related, of course, to the previous. The SEssions (I'm liking the pun. ) are--again--no different than what an IC often does: teach. I come from when there were two tIChers (:P), so the SE acts as one, to me. They're meant for new players to read to get a better idea of how to play. You don't have to read them, and I clearly mark them with SE tags. (I'd try to make them larger--if you'd like--but since the move to this forum, I don't know how the Size tags work and I'd end up making it really small instead of really big as intended.) You can really skip over them if you'd like; they're just me doing my (to me) job of tIChing. (Make the puns stop, make it stop! )
[4]I have no intention of keeping them up the whole game. I really was hoping to not do them much at all. Really, though, these things come up whenever I see someone playing in a way where I believe with a good talk, they can learn to do better. As it so happens, there have been a lot of cases in these last couple of pages, but believe me--I've done this before. As the players in question improve, the SEssions decrease significantly. Similarly, even if they

do

make the same mistake, I can point to a previous SEssion to help them. So, I can't promise that I will stop with them--oh, I wish I could. But I CAN say, I'll get better.

Vote: Kayi

Case and shit later.

I will be waiting for that.

[Lateralus22]

[1]Huh? How so? Don't see how that was very personal at all. You're going to have to be more specific and say what exactly in there you see is personal.

Huh. Looking back that wasn't the best example, but it seems its your posting style this game. Well first off this whole entire happy go lucky face you've put on sets weird vibes. A whole lot of your post comes across as hand holding like YOU have to be the teacher to guide everyone through with those gaint blocks of SE fluffery. Let the IC do their job, nothing so far as been so bad that you have to come to the rescue.

It was discredited because it was invalid… (Wall of Text)
Anyway, again, the info looked good, albeit not required, so I kept it in there.

You're contradicting yourself, info can not be good if it was invalid. Explain.

[Yenros]

@ Jay, it's not just you that doesn't quite understand, Kayi said he still doesn't either.

@ Mute: I can't really defend myself, because I don't get what you mean. Suspicion was placed on my vote on Jay. So I defended my reason. I don't know what else to say on this note at this point, so if you could elaborate for me. Also, Kayi may have said what she did, but she has been posting. You have been lurking, and when you do not post there is no way for us to gauge you and figure out whether you are scummy or not.

[Beefster]

@Beef

Did you think

alignment

fishing was legit scummy?

Not so much the alignment part of it. That's good. The fishing is what I have problems with. Those kinds of questions can be used in all sorts of fallacious ways. If you said you liked being Mafia, I could take that to mean "You must be scum then," but I could also take it to mean "You must not be enjoying this game. You are obviously town."

The only kind of fishing I ever agree with is reaction fishing, which is essentially what my play revolves around in the early game. It's risky, yes, but it can sometimes get better information than being more... uh... passive.

[Mastin]

Well first off this whole entire happy go lucky face you've put on sets weird vibes.

You mean ":P"s? I'm naturally a joker, so I use them a lot. (Like, a lot a lot.)

[1]A whole lot of your post comes across as hand holding like [2]YOU

have

[1]to be the teacher to guide everyone through with those giant blocks of SE fluffery. Let the IC do their job, [3] nothing so far as been so bad that you have to come to the rescue.

[1]Like I said, I come from when games had TWO IC's. (I've said this many times.) I was around when it was dropped to one IC and one SE--but to me, that SE was still a second IC. And as I explained, the fact that it takes less time to be an SE means that filling the role is at

least

equal to the IC in terms of importance and pressure, to me. So, yes. I feel the need to teach. To me, I feel like it's part of my job, as an SE. I know, it's not, anymore, with the current rules. But it USED to be. And I'm a guy who is very slow to change, obviously. [2]As for me having to do it...well, yeah. I consider it an obligation. If I were to slave off my entire life, I would never pay off the debt I owe to this site due to how I used to play. I really do feel the need to try and redeem myself. I feel compelled to teach, because I feel that--ironically--my extreme infamy has given me the kind of experience which makes me very good at the job: because I know what NOT to do, better than any other player. I know the consequences of actions, and can help teach others to try and avoid making them in the first place.
[3]But there have been situations in this game where players have made mistakes, already. Mute lurking, for example. Beefster had not addressed that point--at least, not enough--and it didn't look like he would. I, however, did, and now, Mute is looking like he might become more active because of it. Can you tell me that was wrong?

You're contradicting yourself, info can not be good if it was invalid. Explain.

Can't, really. It was half-asleep logic. If you say something when drunk, for example, and are asked to explain the reasoning later, it's going to be really hard to do so. I suppose it might be due to the whole IoA thing? You know, it was information, but because I couldn't form a conclusion from it, it was worthless for analysis. Maybe? I dunno, half asleep. I posted 62 at 7:30 AM; give me a break. (That might not sound bad, but keep in mind, I had been up 'til two the night before, and had just taken a long ride to get there. Sleep deprivation and logic do not mix well. ) It sounds right, though. Yeah, I think it was "nice info, but info I can't get

info

* conclusions from".
*There are multiple definitions of information. One of them is, well, facts, stuff gathered as evidence, etc.--what we think of as info. Another, however, is...ahg, I had it in my head just a second ago. I know there's more than one, and that this second definition I was using could've created the confusion.

...Can we drop this, now? It's making my head hurt; I'm going in circles; it's cluttering the thread unnecessarily; it's not really relevant, at least, not to me; it has the risk of getting personal really quickly (and I have some...really bad emotional reactions. Another thing which was so bad about me. )...the list could go on. >_<

[Mastin]

A-ha!

—Synonyms
1. data, facts, intelligence, advice. 2. Information, knowledge, wisdom are terms for human acquirements through reading, study, and practical experience.

That's the difference. Things gathered, versus things learned. Info can mean either.

[Mute]

@Mute

Put a vote on someone, I don't care how sure of you are of your read, just take a stand. Voting is a great part of voicing your opinion and allows town to get a better read on you.

Okay, once again point noted. Familiar playstyle, and longer length of the day period, so blegh.

@ Mute: I can't really defend myself, because I don't get what you mean. Suspicion was placed on my vote on Jay. So I defended my reason. I don't know what else to say on this note at this point, so if you could elaborate for me. Also, Kayi may have said what she did, but she has been posting. You have been lurking, and when you do not post there is no way for us to gauge you and figure out whether you are scummy or not.

If you want to bring up my then lurking, why did you not address what I addressed towards you? I mentioned your posting style, not your vote. I mentioned when you were placed on suspicion, which you did not mention.

Vote: Yenros

Not liking the dodging around.

Also, @Lateralus/Mastin; perhaps putting the SE and IC stuff in spoilers would help avoid having too large an open wall of text?

[Mastin]

I don't know how to use Spoiler Tags since the move, either. >_<
Anything new to 3: Can't do. :/
Things around before then: master of.

[Mute]

maybe something

Spoiler: along the lines

of this?

words words words.

Spoiler: SE

more words words words

words words words