Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)
-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
/confirmI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)vollkan wrote:
Vollkan, why on earth would you self-vote?Vollkan five seconds in the future wrote:Vote: Vollkan
Vote: Vollkan
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Ok, doesnt this mean that there is no self voting? As soon as they reach L-1 (by anyone), their vote automatically drops off, meaning they cant be involved in lynching themselves in any way.Rage wrote:Self-votes count only if the player is not at L-1.
In other words, all this mechanic does is throw off the actual vote count if someone is voting themselves. Creates confusion is what it does. The enemy loves confusion.
Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't statedpriorto your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).vollkan wrote:ecto wrote: I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?
5 people cast votes before I did. Like my vote, not one of those votes was backed up with any reasoning or justification.ecto wrote: Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?
In other words, you found something distinct about my vote. Obviously, it was the fact it was a self-vote that set it apart, as you yourself identified.
But...let's stop and think for a second - YOU are the one who is positing that there is something so unique about my vote that it, and it alone, requires an actual justification.
Thus, I'd like to hear from you as to why you think that self-voting is so special that it requires justification?
As for my reasons: I have learned over my time here that self-voting is one of the best ways to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices (ain't that so, Ecto ), which means it provides a lovely springboard for discussion//
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.
You didn't give a reason, yet ask the rhetorical question of why you would vote for yourself. I've yet to hear a pro-town reason for it in any discussion I've read and participated in.vollkan wrote:
Vollkan, why on earth would you self-vote?Vollkan five seconds in the future wrote:Vote: Vollkan
Vote: Vollkan
You here imply and leave it hanging that you have some special reason. Hence, you've been asked to explain yourself, which you are welcome to do without answering with a question in return yourself. No dodging the question Ehh? Good.
3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why its crap move from your own mouth.
The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or townThe only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"
You've also come to a completely wrong conclusion:
It's a terrible springboard for provoking discussion because what you get is A: a player who could be town or scum self-voting (I find it to be about equal) and B: Anyone who questions the move could be either town or scum because self voting is anti-town play.As for my reasons: I have learned over my time here that self-voting is one of the best ways to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices (ain't that so, Ecto Wink), which means it provides a lovely springboard for discussion//
So you've created a wonderful WIFOM to kick off the game, that tells us no information about alignments. All you've done is given yourself a reason to feel self-important enough to make unjustifiably smug comments.
Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan. Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind)I don't care how "minor" a suspicion is. If you suspect me for something, you have to prove that it is scummy.
And,"I don't like it"/"distaste" is NOT an acceptable justification for suspecting something!
Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".
Now back to your own question, and no dodging this. Answer it. The cop out answer of "it spurred discussion" wont cut it.
Self-voting I've seen equally from scum and town, but using the "I was trying to spur discussion" excuse, that's mostly scum. I took especial note of your comment that
Oh my, we wouldn't want to appear to be idiots casting shadows from your amazing brilliance. Only idiots would disagree with you? You might find yourself in a crowd of them. Mtfixij already has the right of things. You are so bent upon the thought that your logic is infallable that you dont seem to care to listen though.only scum or idiots would remain opposed to me at the end.
Anyhow, let's hear this nugget of Knowledge that you asked yourself...
Vollkan, why on earth would you self-vote?
P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I know we could go back and forth creating a larger and larger response everytime for pages and pages, but we already know where that leads.
So, some quick things.
First off, conversation in general is pro-town, but useless flummery is not. Having a major role in the conversation generated by your self-vote, I'd rather not consider it to be flummery. In doing so, I have to concede that in this case your self vote was not an anti-town move. There are many ways to generate a conversation, and this is as valid as any. Makes it a neutral tell.
Giving the "generating discussion" reason after your coy question to yourself was lame. LAME! But again, it did what you purport to be after, and so is also an acceptable response. Neutral tell.
Here's where I continue to disagree and can certainly prove it if I want:
Anyone can play the game the way they want. Your like or dislike of the words 'distate' or 'I dont like it' is irrelevant. People can play by gut, they can give exactly those reasons and nothing more. They have the right to play their own game and your Vollkans ground rules dont extend beyond your own keyboard.
Now, you can build cases on people based upon their actions, you can threaten to vote them, try to build a coalition to dump them for their lack of reasoning. But, in the end, the can still behave as they want (within the mods rules).
You are a perfect example of this fact. You self-voted even though I dislike it, even asone of manyvalid ways to spur page 1 discussion.
You are also free to use scum and idiots if you wish. But I am also free to point out that labeling people who do a certain thing an 'idiot' is a low grade psychological tool. It is resorting to feelings. People certainly don't want to be called idiots. On a subconscious level, if they are sheep (and we know there are alot of them), they will tend to follow as you lead with your negative reinforcement. Still, wanting to be able to sway the town where you want them to go is also a neutral tell. Why scum wants to manipulate the town is obvious. But if your ego tells you that you are a better town player than the rest of the group, then you still want to be able to manipulate the town into voting your target when you believe you've found scum.
Yes, I do believe it will be a good game.
I intend my next post to be much smaller, as we are getting into one of MY ground rules. "Muddying the waters" with either large blocks of text or taking us off on an irrelevant tangent is a great scum tool. People tend to lose focus or patience, either way, and make bad lynch decisions.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
That wasn't so quick as I had originally planned...
Looking at Spyrex's response, I see that my last paragraph is roughly similiar to a couple of his points. To fend off cries of plagiarism (which I've seen called scummy, taking someone else's ideas and recycling them as your own), you can search Ectomancer and "muddying the waters". You'll find it in completed games.
Sorry to see you go Juls. I hate that you got a bad first impression. Stick around and give this game a chance? We wont go easy on you (scum!), but we would certainly try to make you feel welcome to the siteI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
@Spyrex - You do realize that his self-vote could not have generated discussion if it was ignored?
@Vollkan - Would you consider this to be playing by gut, or do you think this is an example of a logical reason being used?
I don't believe that pushing for pushing's sake on page 2 'reeks' of anything at all.Its the style and choice of aggression. Honestly, its good for discussion but pigs will fly before a case based on self-voting is going to mean anything. That level of aggression on something that, from his own mouth, is considered to be null just reeks of pushing for pushing's sake.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
We see things quite differently Vollkan, and I see you trying to use a time loop to use my later judgement of your defense to criticize my early statements. You see a problem with me being convinced by your arguements? Why do you argue if you dont expect to be able to sway players to your line of reasoning.
Asking you to justify your vote is based upon exactly the same reasoning as your self-vote in the first place. Generating discussion. You dont own a monopoly on that tactic you know.
By rhetorically asking yourself why you placed that vote, youdiddifferentiate yourself from the other random votes. It's not a 'weak' statement. I'm right, your wrong.
Whether you think pressure voting is stupid is as irrelevant as my opinion that self-voting is stupid. K?
There is no strawman. I've found that scum tend to fall into that "you cant prove your case, so you cant vote me attitude'. That's called experience. You can argue with the position if you like, but my experience tells me Im right.
Players can play by gut. They dont have to follow your "prove it!" gameplay if they dont wish to. You can vote them if you like, but you cantmakethem do anything. This is also not a strawman, as it directly contradicts your 'groundrules' thatyouposted.
Going to work.
Thanks Mana_Ku, Im doing ok, trying to take it easyI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Another counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor topresent a case, the onus is on the defenderto point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.
One more question for you:
You didn't like that I was swayed by your arguments regarding your self-vote. So tell me what conclusion you had come to if I had dug my feet in and refused to budge? Stubborn townie or scum?
Because you realize that if you say scum, then you simply setup a catch 22 situation in which either way a person responded, they would be scum, and this situation was derived from a self-vote on page 1, to which either town or scum might equally react towards.
I'd like this one addressed, and I dont care about the 'onus on the prosecutor'. This isn't a prosecution, this is a debate.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
No. The accused has got to explainSpyreX wrote:
By saying the onus is on the prosecutor, isn't it being implied that one only has to defend themselves from anAnother counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.actualcase (the he got you part) - there is no real defense from attacks that are unfounded in general. So, of course the onus is on having a real case versus just needle attacks.whyit is isn't an actual case if hebelievesit isn't. Others may have a different opinion, it's up to the defender to demonstrate why it isn't an actual case. It's the defenders job to make sure town understands the problem with the attack, or defend against the case if there is one.
Without it, you allow the player to ignore what they want on the grounds of "it isn't actually a case" without having to actually explain why. That player also runs the risk of having ignorant town (Vollkan likes the name stupid) assume that the attack was a valid one since it went unanswered. Whether one would appreciate the fact or not, people do play this game on their gut feelings about a player. You either tear apart the argument, or defend against it, not let it stand flawed and unexposed.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
4-5 players talking aren't enough to lynch anyone. Pending replacements aside, let's see some chat going on. Pick a side in a debate, pick on someone, but stop sitting there picking your nose. Do some typing!I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
The entire discussion is pointless? Cmon, how about my motives for jumping on him? What about MrFixij and his comments? What about Spyrex's input? Was he overly sucking up to Vollkan in his post 75? You've got to be able to dig something to comment on aside from the self-vote itself. What about all the commentaryafterthe self vote?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I wanted to hear the answer to the question that he asked himself.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Early debate is a great personality probe. It doesn't always have to be the person that you 'jumped on' that you are interested in either. You gain insights from how others react, or don't react to it. I should know something of your character when I make judgment calls later in the game concerning your motivations.springlullaby wrote:And what insight have you gained from your 'jumping' on him?
And yeah, other people need to chirp in more.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
QFT. Do you have some reason that we do not to decide that Vollkan and I are diametrically opposed in alignment? I see no reason that Vollkan and I could both be town, nor do I see a reason why it could not be proposed that we are both scum putting on an elaborate staged swordfight for town's benefit to distance ourselves from one another.TDC wrote:
What, can people only be suspicious of one person at a time?mykonian wrote:Why is Springlullaby following Spyrex (she says Ecto is scummy), but votes Vollkan?
@Spyrex - Strongly? If you follow Vollkan's prosecution rules, then the onus is upon you to prove that opinion.
In point of fact, the actual events dispute that statement. I yielded to Vollkan's point rather easily, considering theory discussions to be a nice way to get things going, but something that belongs in the Mafia Discussion forum if you want to write pages and pages about it.
Alright, let's also talk about the term 'jumped on'. Let's jump in the wayback machine and look at this 'jumping on'.
Let's see, I say that I've not personally self-voted, though I had asked to be killed before, and it was for a town win that I did it.Ectomancer wrote:
I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)vollkan wrote:
Vollkan, why on earth would you self-vote?Vollkan five seconds in the future wrote:Vote: Vollkan
Vote: Vollkan
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?
I then ask Vollkan to answer his own question.
---I dont see the 'jumping on' event here. So what's next?
The mod chimed in to explain the mechanism for self-votes, which boils down to, you cant lynch yourself.Ectomancer wrote:
Ok, doesnt this mean that there is no self voting? As soon as they reach L-1 (by anyone), their vote automatically drops off, meaning they cant be involved in lynching themselves in any way.Rage wrote:Self-votes count only if the player is not at L-1.
In other words, all this mechanic does is throw off the actual vote count if someone is voting themselves. Creates confusion is what it does. The enemy loves confusion.
Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't statedpriorto your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?
I explain my interpretation of it, and ask Vollkan if his move was still valid, and to include his reasoning prior to this revelation.
---Still don't see a 'jumping on him'. No aggressive talk at all so far.
The next step in the chain of events was this post by Vollkan.
Nowvollkan wrote:ecto wrote: I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?
5 people cast votes before I did. Like my vote, not one of those votes was backed up with any reasoning or justification.ecto wrote: Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?
In other words, you found something distinct about my vote. Obviously, it was the fact it was a self-vote that set it apart, as you yourself identified.
But...let's stop and think for a second - YOU are the one who is positing that there is something so unique about my vote that it, and it alone, requires an actual justification.
Thus, I'd like to hear from you as to why you think that self-voting is so special that it requires justification?
As for my reasons: I have learned over my time here that self-voting is one of the best ways to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices (ain't that so, Ecto ), which means it provides a lovely springboard for discussion//thisis a jumping on post. Vollkan was waiting to pounce, probably on anyone who bothered asking him about his self-vote. The particularly galling statement was at the end:
Read my first two statements again. I see no presumptions or prejudices evident at this point, yet Vollkan is giving the old as though I had?? This statement here was the first 'jumping on' and it certainly wasn't by Ectomancer.People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices (ain't that so, Ecto )
This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that Vollkan likes to use a time loop to take things I said later in the game and applied them to earlier situations. It does not matter that later in the game that I expressed my distaste for self-votes. My first two posts asking him about this move were deliberately neutral. It benefits him from a debate standpoint to try to establish a link from my own opinion that was revealed later concerning self-votes to the first two statements that began this entire chain of events.
Read those statements. They were not 'jumping on', nor did they include any 'presumptions and prejudices' that Vollkan refers to untilin the discussion.later
To put it simply, the argument that both Spyrex and Vollkan are trying to use against me, that I was 'jumping on' Vollkan and first attacked Vollkan with presumptions and prejudices is patently untrue.
@Vollkan - this post is not about questioning your own motives. I consider them to be neutral still. I simply disagree with some of your analysis and believe that it is as tied to your ego as it is suspicions against me.
This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.
This post was way too long... I'm going to go ahead and end it with my first vote of the game.
vote SpyrexI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I'm not bothered by his vote. I didn't find him scummy for his actions, and my statement that his ego was driving some of his statements was sure to provoke some type of reaction.
You're the type that just has to be right aren't you? In this instance, you are not. At this point in time, you have no idea whether I have preconceptions or not from the way this question is phrased. I, in fact, went out of my way and stated a situation where I did something odd, that was still pro-town. If anything, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt to present a pro-town reason for your self vote, not 'jumping on you'. It was only later that I revealed that I dislike it.vollkan wrote: Here is where you jumped on:
Ecto, as I have stated repeatedly now, your initial question betrays that you assumed that the self-vote was somehow uniquely warranting of further justification (and your subsequent "case" against it shows just baseless that assumption was). It's "jumping on" because you were basically going against something based on nothing more than preconceptions, at best.Ecto wrote: I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?
This just reinforces my statement that you were waiting for someone, anyone, to mention your self-vote so that you could say "Ahah!"
On to disliking it, it's because we are the two primary participants in the discussion, yet there is no indication of alignment based upon which side of the debate we are on. The reason that I am not continuing to harp on the relative usefulness of an opening self-vote is twofold.
1: It belongs in Mafia Discussion, not in the middle of a game for pages on end.
2: Despite revealing little in the way of alignment of the baiter and the enabler, you can still gain insight into other players by the way they react to the situation.
Without us finding an actual case somewhere, your self-vote is still useless. Lucky for you, I've found fertile soil for a case that is at least indirectly related to your self-vote.
You are still a null tell despite your stubbornness.
My statements against Spyrex are valid ones, and enough for me to place for my vote, and I'd like him to answer to themhimselfand not byyou.
You see, this is where that 'gut' thing comes in. Your gut doesn't like the way I've addressed your self-vote. My gut doesn't like what I'm seeing from Spyrex. As for your alignment? I've already stated where I stand on your alignment. What I dont know is whether Spyrexdoesknow your alignment or not, and how he might react to being called out on something he very well may be doing. A vote reinforces it, addingpressure(dont care that you dont like pressure votes).
P.S. - read the "There is no OMGUS" thread to understand why the term "pseudo-OMGUS" certainly doesnt exist.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."
What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".
Without wading back for quotes, I believe both said something similar to:
"It wasn't what he did, it washowhe did it".
Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is thatyour gutdoesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that youwoulddiscount it if it were coming from someone else.
@Spyrex - You made an obvious error in 2 ways. First of all, you made my 2nd questioning of Vollkan as "Point 1", when anyone reading the game can see that it was not. My first two statements were deliberately neutrally phrased, just as they are, and both are important tothe early stage of this conversation.
Your points 2 and 3 are fromafterVollkan responded, responses that I didn't like, hence my strong responses. Wecontinueto have disagreements over it.
What you are trying to do, as I accused Vollkan of doing, is create a timeloop to take my later responses and tie it back to the original questions concerning his self-vote. What is worse, you quoted me 3 times, andremoved Vollkan's responses. Don't you think those responses provide the context to the statements you quoted? What use is your argument without context?
So your question of: "Why did you jump so strongly on Vollkan for his self-vote?'
Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of hissubsequentresponses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Oh I expected you to argue over what is "gut". No surprise there.
The enemy loves confusion statement still allowed Vollkan to give his original intention for his self-vote and gave my own opinion on the likelyhood of whether a self-vote would still be valid. The mods statement certainly narrowed the options for the original self-vote being a valid one. Giving my own interpretation of a mods ruling is hardly an attack on a player, especially when you allow the player in question an opportunity to address it.
I'll grab a quote of Vollkan's to address the rest of this:
Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans
Pretty much the same thing. You're demanding justification of me particularly.Ecto #2 wrote:
Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?
And don't kid that you weren't relying on prejudice. The question "Why would you...." implies that there is something which needs to be justified. It holds that one set of behaviour is the accepted norm and that a deviation must be justified. That's prejudice.original post on this topic.. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkanhimselfis the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himselfin his own wordsdoes not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.
As for your scummy moves Spyrex, as you say, its all in how you are doing it. If the 2nd post I made was the issue, then why did you label it as point 1, and then post 2 more quotes taken out of context without Vollkan's responses? It looks like you were simply trying to 'pad' your case (which I consider anti-town at the least, possibly straight out scummy). It took another response by me for you to cull your attack back to a specific part of a post you feel was negative. Why? Why did it take so many posts and refutations for you to finally find your real point?
I'll concede that the term 'the enemy loves confusion' could be taken by some as a negative connotation. It could also be taken in the manner I meant it, which was to 1: give my interpretation of the mods rules, and 2: warn against creating confusion in the game when confusion benefits scum.
Which brings us back to you and your actions. You spent pages arguing without bringing up the nugget that was central to your argumentand that nugget was on page 1. That tells me (and my gut), that you were trying to inflate your position, forcing me to refute your points along the way, until finally you were backed into your last point of refuge in regards to your case.
Like we 3 have said, its how you are doing what you are doing that is scummy. And yes, that falls under a judgment call, and judgment calls are inherently a 'gut' decision because it isn't a logic decision.
My gut also tells me that you will complain that I gave you nothing to defend yourself against. Not true. I give you your entire course of play to defend yourself against. My sympathies go out to you that you created such a large mess to defend. You've moved way beyond being able to point out a phrase on page 1 that could, admittedly, be interpreted in 2 ways (or more). You should have gone for that right off the bat. Instead, you get to explain why it took 4 pages of accusations to finally fall back on it.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Because it was prefaced by, "So to repeat your question to yourself" of COURSE I'm going to use your turn of phrase in asking the question. I left out "on Earth" because it was unnecessary and could be construed as mocking, and not my intention. Once I stated that I was going to ask of you your own question, the language is going to be yours.vollkan wrote: So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".
So yes, basing your prejudices upon that turn of phrase is mistaken if you think it originated with me. It was an echo of yourself that you heard.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I dont even want to try and do the word count that explained why already, but I'll give you a short summary.
I questioned your motivations for your actions. I pressed on you (when Vollkan wasn't in the way defending you) and it took 4-5 pages for you to finally spit out that your issue was a turn of phrase from my 2nd post. (unmentioned before then except a vague "You've been aggressive" or "you attacked him strongly") This is something that I could have explained to you on my 3rd post. No, instead you let it ride, or didnt even notice it back then, but found it when you needed a case? Then ignore Vollkan's responses in all of your references back to me. You then take only my posts to try to back up your case.
Do you know what context is? The context of his posts is what garnered the aggressive talk, not the self-vote.
Now, you've been talking about this 'strongly' forever, but only when hard pressed can you come up with something solid to be addressed. Then, rather than concede there could possibly be different interpretations of a phrase used on page 1, you forge on stubbornly with your accusations.
All of this smacks of someone who established a prejudice, and has gone about it for so long now, that you were forced to go back and cling to whatever you can so that you can hope to have an actual case. Revisionist history is what they call it I believe.
Hmm, wasnt so short after all.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Thanks for your detailed input orangepenguin. Absolutely insightful.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Glad you said it so I didn't need to.orangepenguin wrote:That really wasn't a case, FYI. I didn't really do the whole "show scummy stuff with quotes supporting it" dealio, so don't count that as a case.
Alright, rather than go through each section, I'll hit a couple and let everyone else pull up my posts, and then look at your post by post summary.
You may have been trying to sum up those posts in a quick 1 line, but in several of those posts, there was a HECK of a lot more going on than you chose to summarize, most of it more important than what you chose to put in a summary (IMO), plus a quick glance shows some of it to be just plain wrong.
Let's look at #7 for example:
That's your summary, but look at the actual post:Post 7 - Long post, basically saying vollkan can "go by gut" but don't expect others to follow and how they disagree.
You crunched several points into "long post".
That final paragraph wasn't a summary of the entire post.
From what you did summarize though, you didnt get it right:
It doesnt tell Vollkan that he can go by gut.
It says thatother playershave a right to play by their gut.
It doesnt say that other players dont have to follow Vollkan's gut, it says they dont have to follow his rules of "prove it".
That's quite a different point than your summary makes it out to be.
Brevity has its place, but it is useless if it gets the summary wrong, or leaves out important points.
Quick look at another:Ectomancer wrote:We see things quite differently Vollkan, and I see you trying to use a time loop to use my later judgement of your defense to criticize my early statements. You see a problem with me being convinced by your arguements? Why do you argue if you dont expect to be able to sway players to your line of reasoning.
Asking you to justify your vote is based upon exactly the same reasoning as your self-vote in the first place. Generating discussion. You dont own a monopoly on that tactic you know.
By rhetorically asking yourself why you placed that vote, youdiddifferentiate yourself from the other random votes. It's not a 'weak' statement. I'm right, your wrong.
Whether you think pressure voting is stupid is as irrelevant as my opinion that self-voting is stupid. K?
There is no strawman. I've found that scum tend to fall into that "you cant prove your case, so you cant vote me attitude'. That's called experience. You can argue with the position if you like, but my experience tells me Im right.
Players can play by gut. They dont have to follow your "prove it!" gameplay if they dont wish to. You can vote them if you like, but you cantmakethem do anything. This is also not a strawman, as it directly contradicts your 'groundrules' thatyouposted.
Going to work.
Thanks Mana_Ku, Im doing ok, trying to take it easy
*sigh*Post 9 - Response to spyrex saying that people go on gut, but that their cases are flawed and stuff
Look at the post.
It is about the defender being responsible for pointing out to the town the flaws in an argument against them. It is in direct response to Vollkan's and Spyrex addon statement that you dont have to defend against a case that "isnt real". It addressed Vollkan's "onus is on the prosecutor" that you allude to in summary 8 as my phrase when it originated with Vollkan.
It is a post laying out the responsibility of town players. It does not summarize into "people can go on gut, but their cases are flawed and stuff"
Ectomancer wrote:
No. The accused has got to explainSpyreX wrote:
By saying the onus is on the prosecutor, isn't it being implied that one only has to defend themselves from anAnother counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.actualcase (the he got you part) - there is no real defense from attacks that are unfounded in general. So, of course the onus is on having a real case versus just needle attacks.whyit is isn't an actual case if hebelievesit isn't. Others may have a different opinion, it's up to the defender to demonstrate why it isn't an actual case. It's the defenders job to make sure town understands the problem with the attack, or defend against the case if there is one.
Without it, you allow the player to ignore what they want on the grounds of "it isn't actually a case" without having to actually explain why. That player also runs the risk of having ignorant town (Vollkan likes the name stupid) assume that the attack was a valid one since it went unanswered. Whether one would appreciate the fact or not, people do play this game on their gut feelings about a player. You either tear apart the argument, or defend against it, not let it stand flawed and unexposed.
Thanks for the PbPa. I dont think it supports your vote though. In fact, looking at your summaries vs what is in my posts, I would say you might want to re-examine the content and reconsider some of your summaries. If your vote was based upon them, it is standing on unsound ground.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
[quote="TDC"]Ecto: Do you think he's scummy for that pbpa summary?
I mean it doesn't support his vote reason (you pushing crap logic) at all, and I think if he was going to fudge a pbpa then it would've made sense to fudge it in a way that supports his vote?quote]
No, I think that he just botched the job of it. A pbpa is only useful if it actually reflects/summates the actual events. I can tell from reading it that he got at least a few of his interpretations entirely wrong. It looks like a skim job, but I cant entirely blame him for that due to the length of the posts that have been made.
What I'd like is for him to take what errors I pointed out, go back and apply it to the summary he made, and then see if he still arrives at a conclusion that says "Lynch Ectomancer".I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I dont have time to answer all of this right now. Do me a favor Vollkan and unvote if it gets too close to lynch. (Though Im thinking I probably wont be quick lynched, but just in case) I'll be back to give detailed responses. Busy day today though, might be tonight or tomorrow.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Hey Vollkan, let me try this analogy, because we are not agreeing on this thing about self-votes and random votes.
We got a pen of sheep. Those sheep are white. They place random votes.
One sheep dyed itself black by placing a self-vote instead of a random vote.
Then the black sheep bleated "why did I dye myself black?"
So there were two things here.
You've said that there is no difference between a random vote and a self-vote. That just is not correct.
You differentiated yourself with a self-vote, and you did it on purpose, right? I mean, a self-vote didnt just randomly come from your keyboard. And you did that because you wanted to spur discussion, right? (If you didn't, refer to the original question of why did you self-vote)
That's where you, the black sheep, differentiated yourself from the other random voting white sheep.
You then made sure that everyone knew you were doing something different by asking yourself why you would do such a thing.
Now, going back to the analogy, you are now saying that you are just like the other white sheep, and the fact that you bleated was irrelevant.
Well, I disagree. You dyed yourself black with that self-vote. You are not like the other white sheep that random voted. You differentiated yourself, and then called attention to the fact that you differentiated yourself with the question to yourself.
Then, when given attention, you protest, "Why pick on me? Im just like all these other white sheep!"
Well no, no you aren't.
You are a sheep that wanted to talk and tried to give a way for a conversation to get started. I dont blame you for that.
But for sheep's sake, I will never buy your point that you did not differentiate yourself from the random voters.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Well, this response just might. What we need to know is, what were you thinking? What reasoning did you go through to arrive at your vote? Simply acknowleding that your "case" wasnt strong enough isn't good enough (and I think the problem is that you didnt have one of your own and referenced someone who didnt either).ortolan wrote:Unvote
Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.
Blaming Vollkan is not an excuse by the way, and is a bit of an emotional appeal isn't it? If you are blaming Vollkan, are you saying he is scummy? What exactly is it about his 'gambit' that you are blaming for your action?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?vollkan wrote:
The fact that every sheep is white (votes for other people) doesn't mean that any sheep painting itself black (self-voting) places an onus upon the black sheep to justify a deviation from the status quo. That's simply a sneaky way of shifting the onus of proof.
What I did was say "Hey, look at me. I am being non-conformist". That doesn't in anyway warrant inquiry in and of itself UNLESS there are reasonable grounds for considering that deviation alignment-relevant
You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.
P.S. - it looks like you are getting my point that you cannot prevent someone from using "gut" as their reasoning. The only thing you can control is how you react to it. Voting works wonders.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Here's my problem. I dont get the impression that you unvoted because it was a poor voting choice. I get the impression that you are now saying it was a poor voting choice due to the flack you got over it from all sides. (something Im certain you didnt expect) Your case wasn't developed because you were trying to ride the coattails of others. Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus. You didn't start the wagon, thus avoiding too much attention, and you don't have to end it either, once again avoiding too much attention.ortolan wrote:While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice.
The telling event here is your referencing orangepenguin as a source for your case, when he said himself that it wasn't one. Additionally, you had to climb over the posts where I demonstrated where his analysis fell short, or was just wrong. You didn't even talk about those points at all, or really any other point from anyone else either.
I'm also not satisified with you answer concerning the justification of your original vote. Telling us that you no longer believe it, therefor why would you explain something you don't believe is hogwash. You know why you did it back then, and current belief holds no bearing on a belief you supposedly once held.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Are you really trying to pick out a single point in my argument against you? This statement is part of an analysis of your motivations after establishing that your every move was about not making waves or putting yourself in danger. (Except you misjudged that part.) It is a single piece of several that demonstrate a pattern of behavior.ortolan wrote:
You can make an argument for someone being scum for joining a bandwagon at any stage. "You started the bandwagon against him, therefore you're scum", "you were the second vote in the bandwagon, if that isn't scummy I don't know what is", "you were the third vote on the bandwagon- you were trying to join an already established bandwagon and hope you could ride it to the end"..."you hammered, you're getting lynched next". I worry that most people's case against me relies on very specific interpretations of what my goals were, which are no more privileged than any other interpretation. This is really no different from what I said in post 143:Ecto wrote:
Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus.
I'll be expecting a response to the actual case when you aren't so busy.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
OrangePenguin, your pbps missed a ton of point by points, and it also got several of the points flat out wrong. You are welcome to talk about that if you are going to avoid putting a case for your vote into your own words anyhow.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Your impulsiveness ratcheted up an existing live wagon. Are you saying your motivations were not to increase the pressure, nor to advance that bandwagon? It was simply any impulsive thing you did with no thought put to it?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
@Ortolan -
@OrangepenguinEctomancer wrote:Your impulsiveness ratcheted up an existing live wagon. Are you saying your motivations were not to increase the pressure, nor to advance that bandwagon? It was simply any impulsive thing you did with no thought put to it?
Ectomancer wrote:OrangePenguin, your pbps missed a ton of point by points, and it also got several of the points flat out wrong. You are welcome to talk about that if you are going to avoid putting a case for your vote into your own words anyhow.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
No, this is Ortolan's post 189.mykonian wrote:
lol, this is clearly not my quote Vollkan... I don't think I ever used the words "internally consistent", "coherent", "device" or "subjective determination" in any mafia game. Clearly Ecto's.vollkan wrote:
This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:mykonian wrote:
It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.
I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.
(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)
Getting your quote pyramid wrong is generating confusion Vollkan. Due diligence please.
Try again with the responses directed to the correct player? My question now is if you responded to the original, correct player who made the quotes, or if your response was to the player that you madeappearto have made those quotes.
We're proven to have 2 players who dont generate cases of their own, and 1 who does pbpa's that get the pbp's wrong. Worse, 1 is blindly following the other with their vote.
It makes for an easily manipulated situation. You commented on something like this earlier:
Is this an "Oopsie! Wrong player assigned to the quotes!"Vollkan wrote:I guess the best way to put this is that we all play with a presumption that other people are competent. If somebody does something which is only consistent with them being pro-town in the event in a scenario where some lapse has to occur in their standard of play, that action should generally be treated as a scumtell.
Personally, I'd have to flip a coin to decide whether this was an accident or not. Ordinarily, I would say, likely accident, as anyone could go back and show where it was wrong.
Problem is, we've got the two O's whom we know dont read or think for themselves, and then Mykonian, who I dont consider incompetentalsogot the wrong player for that particular quote.
Firm it up will you?
Fixed quote tags, you other silly goose!
Reminder: Don't put any spaces in your quote tags.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Yeah, I generally copy/paste into notepad, especially when Im having to jump back and forth through the thread for different quotes. Helps keep the mistakes to a minimum.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
*sigh* - duly acknowledged.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Old hash vote acknowledged.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I don't believe I have yet advocated lynching Vollkan.mykonian wrote:Do we really have no other idea's then vote ecto, or vote vollkan? As good as it started, voting for the major players is still kind of random.
If we assume the two O's are town, then scum would have known it. Not recalling who brought it up at the time, I would wonder about quick votes on the wagon, or of course, the person who first complained that the wagon was "building too fast".I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Where did I say that scum would have known they were Masons? I said if we assume they are town. They both looked bad, though Ortolan looked the worse. It is not a far out assumption that scum would have been quick to jump on the wagon,mrfixij wrote:
How would scum have known that they're masons? IIRC, momentum halted as soon as the mason claim came to be. I think this course of thought will only yield a WIFOM, which I'm not a big fan of following. I'm still not a fan of Spyre's appeasement strategy and his counter-aggression against Ecto's fast play.Ectomancer wrote:
I don't believe I have yet advocated lynching Vollkan.mykonian wrote:Do we really have no other idea's then vote ecto, or vote vollkan? As good as it started, voting for the major players is still kind of random.
If we assume the two O's are town, then scum would have known it. Not recalling who brought it up at the time, I would wonder about quick votes on the wagon, or of course, the person who first complained that the wagon was "building too fast".orseasoned scum could instead be the "hey, this is building too fast" voice of reason.
I realize it is about me, but havent you beat that horse to glue? You wondered where we might find scum, so I pointed out areas we might look. Just wonder why you got a bit defensive and then went back to old hash.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I saw the exchange, thought ortolan was calling OP 100% town because he followed him, saw your unvote, wondered about it, considered asking you about it, decided to leave it until later, went on defending myself against a couple "me too" voters until the full claim. I still remain responsible for my defense, even if I had decided the attacks were from very probable masons, especially as baseless as they were.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Anyone see the Apple Dumpling Gang?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Ok, so the analogy isnt the same, but the two O's remind me of Tim Conway and Don Knotts.
Here's a numbers game for why you dont lynch someone because they can't be meta'd. In every game, town outnumbers scum. In point of fact, if Vollkan looks the same in every game, you might argue tokeephim around. Random assigning of roles should work out that you will play as town more than you will play as scum.
I dont propose that course of action, just pointing out that if you want to do something with Vollkan due to that meta, you are actually arriving at the wrong conclusion and choice of actions.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Wait, if Vollkan makes bad choices, we lynch him, but if he makes good choices, you still plan to lynch him in the end? On what grounds?mykonian wrote:Ecto, I feel that the same applies to you, that there is little difference between town ecto, and scum ecto. (based on reading games)
But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I concocted about 3 different ways to say this, but I'll do it as a question. What is this that you refer to as a "bad choice" or a "good choice"? Think you can define them? I hold that whether a choice is 'good' or 'bad' is only decided when someone convinces the town that it is. Witness that Ortolan following OrangePenguin was a 'bad' choice until masonry was claimed, then it was no longer a bad choice, but a mason following his partner.
I guess that's my roundabout method of poking fun at your last sentence:That is the way you can get every scum.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I understand the individual words in this quote, but put together like that, I am unable to decipher the underlying meaning.ortolan wrote:At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.
@Whoever griped that I kept going back and arguing about page 1 events, I first discussed it with Vollkan repeatedly, then Spyrex jumped in, then orangepenguin with his pbpa.
I was tired of discussing it too, but when a wagon is building on you, you are obligated to defend your position, even if for the 3rd or 4th time. Im tired of discussing my discussing itI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Just a quick section pulled out of SL's post:
I believe Vollkan and I wereNo, I did not like the fact that Ecto was pushing Vollkan while staying short of being really aggressive. aka I think his behaviour toward Vollkan could be qualified as passive-aggressive, he was needling him on many things but never expressed suspicion that was backed-up with a vote. This is bad because it puts people in a defensive position whereas there is no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite.bothvery aggressive in our debate, and wedidtake clearly defined positions. This attracted other players into making their own opinions, basically forcing them to take sides.
Do you really think you should vote for anyone who you have a disagreement with in game? A simple bit of advice for you. Disagreement /= scum. You place a vote when you think you've found scum, or are close enough to merit ratcheting up pressure.
I never found Vollkan scummy during our head to head exchanges, nor did he need more pressure. Pressure enough was being applied.
You say passive/aggressive, I say measured and deliberate.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
And the wheels grind to a halt...
It's time for some lynching. If nobody has much to say, I'll give my top 3 lynch list and we can go from there.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Let's string up Springlullaby, Mykonian, or mrfixij today.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
C'mon, no fair playing by different rules. The game goes, you give your 3, then we get to ask questions.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
You are semi-playing my game mykonian, so you get your comment.
You've been extremely defensive of SpringLullaby. Established yourself as the SL protector you have. You've even been the attack dog against MrFixij and his vote against SL.
So I throw you (mykonian), SL, and MrFixij on a list and see what happens.
Mykonian the Defender steps up immediately to stick up for SL again. Though I gave 3 names, 1 his own, the other his target, he fixates on SL again and lumps me in with the SL 'bandwagon'. He criticizes the bandwagon itself because he thinks it follows a 'big post' by Spyrex as if Spyrex cant possibly have a valid point, but no recent Spyrex bashing.
We have 1 mason pair claim already, it is Day 1 so no investigative time. What do you know about SL that we do not Mykonian?
When you gave your analysis of players, I noticed that two names were glaringly missing. SpringLullaby and Spyrex. Why fail to establish your feelings for these two, of ALL the people in the game? One you are defending heavily, the other is the attacker you are defending against. What is it you are wanting for us to assume about your position on these two players?
-----------Break for an aside. I'm going through the posts a number of different ways. I wanted to see which side of the initial argument SL and Mykonian took. I've been looking at the thread as a whole, and then filtered by player.
I didnt see what I thought to find, I found something different when reading Mykonian:
What I saw was Mykonian putting some early hits on SL. The points were actually fairly reasonable. He jumped off SL before building any steam on him and chose to vote Spyrex instead. A short time later he unvotes until he places his most recent vote on MrFixij.
Now he is actively defending SL, placing suspicion on anyone who looks to be convinced by Spyrex, or even saying anything against SL, and yet nothing against Spyrex now that his vote dropped.
Where did this 180 degree turnabout on SL come from?
What's the deal with attacking people who might be convinced by Spyrex's arguments, but not on Spyrex?
Why would you address only SL's name on a 3 person list, and not your target or even yourself? It looks to me like you ignore yourself because you aren't a serious lynch candidate (until this post), and your target didn't look like he would be lynched anytime soon, while SL was rising rapidly.
Some people play by logic, some people by gut, I like to look for patterns, or sometimes broken patterns. So, somebody interpret this pattern I found (or think I found).
vote MykonianI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
It could be argued either way. If SL is town, I would say that the case would not be as strong unless you argue that Myk's initial vote was weak and now he is defending hard in order to be vindicated if SL should turn up town. (Of course for Myk, it would be when SL turns up town)TDC wrote:Ecto: Is myk's "turnaround" scummy regardless of sl's alignment?
A better question I think TDC, would be if that turnaround is a 'natural' or 'contrived'. That's probably an opinion based question.
Let's say it this way, SL's alignment is not dependent upon Myk's, but if SL were to turn up scum, I would expect that Myk is also scum.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Those big posts with the red in them are killing me to have to read. It makes it hard for me to figure out who you are talking to, and I think sometimes you forget to put in the [red]red[/red] and so then I have to try to figure out who is talking in that section.
There are some good points I think you have, from what I was able to discern of it.
I wanted to restate that you are correct, there is nothing that could prevent myself and Vollkan from being scumbuddies. Just because we had a big argument doesnt mean anything in terms of our alignment. Alot of it was just theory talk anyhow. But, there is also nothing that could prevent us both from being town, or just one of us being scum.
I realize that you were just trying to make sure that players did not get into the mind set that Vollkan and I could not be partners, but I also dont want them to get into the mindset that wemustbe partners, or that either one of us should be lynched from simple fear of that possible scenario.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I think I already explained why I chose the 3 names that I did.mykonian wrote:Talking about that: Ecto, I have still not heard why you think spring and mrfix scummy. Could you please do something about that?
Ectomancer wrote:And the wheels grind to a halt...
It's time for some lynching. If nobody has much to say, I'll give my top 3 lynch list and we can go from there.SpyreX wrote:At this point I'd just like to see it move. So, if that sparks something, go for it.
Game slowed to a near halt. Ectomancer says 'Im gonna grease the wheels", Spyrex says "go for it". The wheels got greased.Ectomancer wrote:Let's string up Springlullaby, Mykonian, or mrfixij today.
I wouldn't call it a lie, but sometimes you do things to see what happens. I needed to see what would happen if I put those 3 names together on a list. I didnt know what reaction I would get, but Im content with the results.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I've been following this and I've got 2 observations:
Vollkan is overly verbose, giving Orto's post 430 some legs to stand on. It can also be blamed on the observation below.
Ortolan was an early candidate for a VI. I can see why Vollkan might be inclined to not want to argue with him if he thinks he is a dim star on a cloudy night.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
See post 429I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Murky waters indeed.
Alright, we have a bit of an issue. We've got 2 players that we believe are likely town. That's not bad really, but in this situation, the ordinary course of action isn't really occurring.
One of them has decided to actively lurk and focus on other games.
The other has (at least with me) a credibility issue he shares with his partner. Sitting here as the town player you and your partner tried to railroad does not inspire me to follow you in your case.
Thirdly, game theory is important, but so is brevity. I'm getting glassy eyed reading over these large texts subjective objective Bluuuurrrr.
After 18 pages, we have enough to rely on actions. Let's take it apart, see who has done things that could be scum motivated, decide which is the likeliest among the pool of cases and string that person up. I'd like to see some brief, concise cases written up from people. Make them on me if you must. Also, if you must use quotes, keep them few in number. Better to refer to post #'s if possible.
OrangePenguin, you need to play the game out. You may not be under pressure personally, but you are under obligation to (try to) do some leading after your claim. Besides, few things are as annoying as having to replace in to a game where the player before you claimed and quit. You know? I always think " Jerk, if you were going to quit, why the hell did you claim?"I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.
Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:vollkan wrote:
Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?Ecto wrote: Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.
Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?
1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.
2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________
@TDC - I dont sleep with an alarm clock because, in general, my internal clock works fine and wakes me when it gets close to being time to get up. Mod vote counts are roughly a game equivalent of that. I may take a quick glance at it, but not closely unless I'm going back looking at trends, or I know that a wagon has been building enough that a more accurate count than my general awareness is needed.
unvote, vote MykonianI have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
O
M
F
G
W
T
F
W
T
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Did anyone do a summary post on the SL case? Mind doing another brief?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Heheh, that was an expression of pure, unadulterated pain.TDC wrote:In light of spam being such a scummy and important issue for you, what do you think of Ecto's 494? Surely that gives him away as obv-scum...
I must confess that I have considered putting Vollkan up for the lynch, but not because I think he is scummy. My analogy is of the reflectors you put in your car windows to block out the heat. Sure, its doing the job and is beneficial up there if the car is just sitting there, but if you are trying to drive around, you've got to remove the damn thing from your windshield or you'll never get anywhere, OR can't see where you are driving.
Or maybe he is that steady drizzle that turns into driving rain that keep you from being able to see through the windshield unless you turn on the wipers and wipe it away.
@Spyrex - Why do you think that a deadline would be beneficial?I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road
Confession to thoughts of sin are not acting out on them. That paragraph was actually a super top classified ultra secret message to Vollkan.don_johnson wrote: ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree.I have a degree in bullshit. I have patents on entire lines of bullshit. So don't sit here and feed me a line of bullshit and think that I'm not going to recognize it as one.
This unsupported statement brought to you by the Anti-Supported Statement League of the United States and Territories (ASSLUST)-
-
Ectomancer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4322
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: Middle of the road