Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[don_johnson]

hello all. replacing in. i will need some time to get caught up and hope to contribute soon.

This is true, don_johnson replaces Spolium.

[don_johnson]

don: What are your first impressions of each person, before interacting with anybody?

well i've only read a few pages so far and am still trippin out on the self vote issue.

first impressions:

orangepenguin: asked a very smart question. probably a smart person. could be town playing good town, or scum playing town well.

mr.fixij: he seems logical in the early goings. just not sure if its

my

kind of logic.

ectomancer: the first one to realize(or at least publicize) the WIFOM of the self vote discussion(or so it seems). need to read more.

volkan: just scrolling down the page and seeing the giant smoke bomb of a post makes me suspicious, however, he could just be one of those really wordy types. i like longer posts, but only if they're meaningful.

aahhh, day 1... more later.

[don_johnson]

i am trying to keep up, however, i am still plowing through the first eighteen pages. i have made some interesting observations(interesting to me at least) and will gladly share my notes soon. mainly i want to finish reading the rest of the thread and make sure i am not bringing up points that have already been covered, or questions that have been answered. since the conversation seems to be around volkan right now i will say this:

in having read six pages of posts i have probably the most quotes and notes on volkan. almost every single one gives me a neutral read. he is well thought out, well written, and for the most part seems to be posting pro town. he remains neutral in my mind because everyone is trying to look protown, so looking protown should be nothing special on day1. if i may, though, i would like to know(and forgive me if this has been answered) why did you post your rules? it seems extremely counterproductive in the early going. you have basically given any one who wants it a "how to stay off of volkans scumdar" guide. in addition, if you are scum, you now have a way of justifying not picking out your partner(s). as this appears more useful to you as scum, i find this to be very anti town.

other than that i have notes on how well spoken you are and also how you do address everyone's questions. as of page six you haven't dodged any inquiries. please respond.

What purpose had the trap if you actually knew it could catch town just as easily as scum?

i didn't catch where volkan claims he was aware that the trap could catch town, so is that part true? and if so i look forward to your answering the whole post.

[don_johnson]

Whomever the other player is at this point I cant remember which says something.

this is funny. out of all my notes from the first six pages i have you at the top of my scum list with TDC and springlullaby.

i am not comfortable lynching volkan at this point, as wordy as his posts are, i have found very little scumminess among them.

spyrex:(directly from my notes)
post 52, my thoughts bolded

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

I do not agree with this

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

post 59 was basically spam. i find spam inherently scummy.

post 98

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

It seems like ecto had dropped the case at this point, why does spyrex keep bringing it up? Ecto addresses this immediately. Then votes Spyrex.

post 108

So, yes, nice and simple. Ask me questions you want answered or points I've made you'd like clarification on.

Again, avoiding the spotlight. Pushing the conversation into the future.

post 111

My link to Volkan is that I find his play in response to his null self-vote to be pro-town thus far. We are not buddies. I am not going to follow him blindly. I dont need him to be my best friend.

I find the pushing scummy but I haven't made up my mind on echo yet

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet.

he is building a case.

Why deny it?
Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions.

what i have seen from you is avoidance of issues and a desire to move the game forward. perhaps you have contributed more later on, but i am still reading, however, your last few posts seem to be more of the same.

TDC:

P 73

seems like he’s just not paying attention

P 96

a few questions, but no real contribution.

P 478

ortolan: Well, there's one thing you can still tell us: Can you only talk at night, or all the time?

What good does this do? kind of scummy to try and find out more about someones role.

[/quote]

SL:

Self vote P 47

Later:

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote.

P 114

Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

Never gives case.

Earlier:

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

What exactly have you been doing?

have to go to work. these are my top three. i would be comfortable with any of them at this point. please respond.

[don_johnson]

don't really agree with the remarks on my post. i will go back through spyrex's posts and more positively identify the things that stood out to me. i have 17 pages to read. as i am reading i am cutting and pasting things that seem to stand out of everyones posts. selective quoting to me is more efficient than quoting entire posts if most of what the post contains seems irrelevant. in order to expedite a more acceptable post for you i will focus on what stood out the most to me in spyrex's posts: his dodging of issues. yes he seems to be answering some questions, but he selectively avoids certain things. for instance, they addressed my post almost entirely. EXCEPT for my comment on his spam. why would that be? also, instead of selectively quoting i will reference each post by number.

[don_johnson]

my apologies, i quoted again instead of referring to posts by number. i started to, but realized that was just pointless for me. perhaps we have different styles, but i scumhunt based on inconsistencies i see in posting patterns. i use a word curve technique, and look for recurring patterns, so snippet quoting is really the only way i know to present my points. also, i find overly worded posts and "quote walls" to be distracting. so I guess I am not as verbose as some of you, nor am I as experienced in this game. Having played it in person before, I find it an almost completely different beast via the internet. At a table, a scum tell can be a wry smile, sideways glance, or the classic “bullet eyes”. here, we basically start from nothing and try to build reasoning into why we think each other scum. Scumminess is not inherent in complete posts, therefore, quoting someone in full is often useless in proving a point. It is not spyrex’s posts that I find scummy. It is certain aspects of how he is playing this game. In my first read through he seems to deflect questions more than answer them. And when suspicions are raised he asks for more specific questions. If you have nothing to hide then why can’t you just address the suspicions. Underlying all of this(to me) is a desire to keep something hidden. That is what I find scummy so far. It could be his play style and I just have to get used to it. Also, when I said “top” of my scum list, I did by no means intend to put you as the frontrunner. In fact, you are all scum to me. Orto and op have claimed masons, so they earn the first reprieve. What I decided to do was offer up some virtual “third party” observations about the ebb and flow of the game. I looked back and thought about quoting some references for you, but my point(as I have said) is not about the general scumminess of spyrex, but of observations about the way he is posting. I am getting a lot of :

“let‘s move the game forward, I don‘t like your questions or your inferences“.

so here are my snippets. If you think this is cherry picking that’s fine. I prefer to think of it as cherry sorting. Separating the sweet from the sour, if you will.

I'd like, again, maybe some bulleted lists and perhaps even questions. A good chunk of this is stuff I've obviously done but even in your explanation I'm not seeing how they are scummy. So, yes, give me something I can actually refute?

Again, I'd like the list of what I've done thats scummy in a fashion I can respond to it.

Again, I'm -really- not sure why this is so hard to get out, but what above makes it scummy?

Well, wait a sec.

A difference in opinion doesn't bother me. However, do you find it scummy? If not, although I'm not in immediate danger of a lynch, why would you push it to the head of the pack?

Again, on all three of you voting for me, I'd like the concrete, simple explanations of why.

However, I'd still really like to see what it is I've done thats soo scummy.

Appeasement strategy? Please explain a bit more.

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

(to a claimed mason?)

How did this discussion "muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.

“muddy the waters” is defining in and of itself.

What’s funny is that after all of this, spyrex begins making decent, insightful posts. He comes on strong pro town, and his posting on the lurkers and possible scenarios is actually well thought out and presented. My problem with that, is how sure he is of certain things on day 1. I lean towards scum because of this dodgy attitude, which as I have shown with my own posting that he exhibits. (I am referring to your dodding my spam question.) perhaps it is play style, perhaps something more. I brought all of this up because you said you didn’t even know who I was. After reading all you have to say on the lurkers, why did you forget about me? Were you just looking to get “someone” lynched?

[don_johnson]

@Spyrex - Why do you think that a deadline would be beneficial?

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its day 1. there is not much to prove at this point. i find spyrex seems to be more interested in getting a lynch, than in who we actually lynch. no, my case against spyrex is not strong. i haven't read a strong case yet. ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree. orange penguin just voted me because:

His reasoning is just off, and strikes me wrong.

brilliant. if noone else sees the pattern i see with spyrex then that's fine. i accept that.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this quote defines itself. this is what i mean. this tenacious desire for evidence of what is basically my

interpretation

of the data. "you seem dodgy". its a statement. your response has been most illuminating.

[don_johnson]

LOL dude, did you just vote for a claimed(and corroborated) mason? exactly what kind of pressure are you hoping for...

to wit: can someone let me know why our masons claimed? seems kind of a dumb thing to do.

TDC: when i implied that you weren't "paying attention", i meant to the game. i will have to reread my notes, but that post of yours seemed(to me) like you just posted to post and had not carefully read the couple pages prior. i could be totally wrong as with any of my thoughts, it was just something i noticed.

[don_johnson]

don, as town, it is your job to convince us about who you think is scum, or town. Keeping ideas for yourself is not helping.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

Confession to thoughts of sin are not acting out on them. That paragraph was actually a super top classified ultra secret message to Vollkan.

understood. it is what it is.

myk: voting op accomplishes nothing. thats all i have to say on that.

reiterate:

to wit: can someone let me know why our masons claimed? seems kind of a dumb thing to do.

[don_johnson]

You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

i said you were at the top of my list with others. not solely at the top. i have clarified it to you the best i can and yes, i have gotten what i needed from it.

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said). i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained. i find this to be a waste of our time.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

[don_johnson]

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have

no intention

of catching up.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

2.) You're saying that lynching the mason is a better outcome than having the masons claim be believed.
--- The masons, believe it or not, are much better sacrificial lambs for NK's as we have already had one other PR softclaim.
--- If the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to been their partner and had a safeclaim.
--- On the other side you were more than happy to fling suspicion on people for saying anything to the claimed masons.

interesting how you seem to know what i am saying even though i myself have not said it. lynching a mason is not a better outcome than having his claim believed. once the mason claims you obviously don't lynch them. that would be STUPID. and how are they sacrificial lambs for night kills? do you think mafia are going to nk a mason? why would they bother? by claiming they have now REMOVED themselves from the nk list, leaving mafia less people to choose from in hopes of hitting a more powerful role! if the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to be their partner? that could be addressed as a last ditch effort before the lynch occured: i.e. "go ahead and lynch me but i'm a mason and my partner is X."
i did not "fling" suspicion on "people" for saying anything to claimed masons. i cast suspicion on TDC for inquiring about the entirety of their role. i emphasized it in my post to you because you were pushing a "claimed mason" for more info. i find it interesting how upset it makes you when i mention it. all while not even voting for you

or

campaigning for your lynch.

3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy) and then in this post say that:
--- You're suspicions have been explained.
--- Do

exactly

what you were accusing me of as being dodgy.

funny how you don't produce any evidence other than "i think you're being dodgy now".

4.) You've "gotten what you need" from your very bizarre attack on me yet when asked what that could be have, in fact, not even tried to explain it.

i don't feel as though i ever "attacked" you. i made observations, however unfounded you think they are, and put them up for discussion. you became extremely hostile and have turned this into a campaign to lynch me. i haven't even been able to address anyone else here because you are so bent on being "innocent".

[don_johnson]

1.) Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

2.) Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

Again

, why did you leave out what you did.

And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

Again

, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

And,

again

, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

3.) What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

2.) You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

Again

, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again

, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

QFT. You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

this is a wall of questions i believe i actually have answered. here you go

again

asking for further and further clarification. i already conceded that i don't have much of a case against you. i explained that what i read lead me to

believe

certain things. you don't agree. also, this:

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

and this:

I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

and this:

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

sound like rhetorical questions to me, why would you add these in here? to make your case look bigger? does that make it stronger?

Accuser bears the onus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding proof for suspicion.

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

The rest of us are in the position of having played for 22 pages. You are potential scum and there is no way in hell that I am giving you a leave pass to skip over the first 22 pages. I scumhunt by analysing logic, and I want to see some logic to analyse. And if you are genuinely interested in finding scum, you have 20 pages worth of debate and discussion to go over.

true, and if you reread my post i NEVER said i WASN'T going to continue reading, i merely stated that i wanted to be able to play in real time so that i wouldn't fall further behind. so far i haven't found any previous committments made by the player(s) i replaced and my interaction with spyrex has taken on a life of its own. i

can

swing any way i wish. why would that bother you?

[don_johnson]

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.

so i wasn't the only one who noticed this after the first five pages.

[don_johnson]

and be happy guys, claiming mason day one stops us from mislynching twice. Not only for scum the players they have to choose from became smaller, also for us. So don't be that harsh on orto, don.

not trying to be too harsh, i just don't know if i would have done the same. claiming mason is different than claiming

and

outing your mason partner, but as i continue to read i am seeing how it came to be.

myk: is there something i am seriously missing in the thread, or are you piggybacking on spyrex's unfavorable view of me based on your "gut"? in other words, why are you so convinved that spyrex is town? or is it that you simply find my posting scummy? you

have

threatened to vote for me.

[don_johnson]

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

[don_johnson]

Umm, no. Allow me to reorder said questions so you can not pretend they are rhetorical.

1.) Given my "dodgy play", when you do not respond to my questions what reply could you have gotten from me other than my, again, asking for clarification?

this question is baseles as it

presumes

that you have asked questions which i have not answered. we disagree on the particulars of this exchange. if you have any real questions please ask them and i will answer them.

2.) What did you "get" from your case on me that exempts you from, again, answering my questions?

your hostility speaks volumes. your desire to not only to clear your name from my list, but also to lynch me and remove me from the game. pretty harsh considering i already conceded that my case was not strong and was based on a general feel i got from reading the first five pages of this thread. i have not said i am exempt. why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

3.) What reasons do you have to say I am only interested in getting A lynch versus actually lynching people whom I find scummy? Have you actually caught up with this game (because if you have I definitely can not understand this statement)?

mainly, it is your desire to place a deadline. you have all rambled on for 22 pages, whats a few more if it can give us a better educated consensus of who is the best lynch? i find this to be unsettling as i always understood deadlines to be the responsibility of a moderator. in answer to the second part of your question: no, i am not completely caught up. looking through each page takes a considerable amount of time considering the amount of wifom arguments i am coming across where someone insists they are right. i am trying to measure out my time accordingly to also keep up to date with the here and now. other than that i would have to find and quote the few posts which gave me that feeling, but

again

, i have clearly stated that i do not have a strong case against you and that as i do read further your posts become more insightful.

Now, if it was a "list of feelings on players" that is one thing. You came in with, instead, a case on me. You said I was your top suspect and you even gave reasons why. Now, when those reasons were brought to light for discussion (or to refute), you instead pish-posh it away AND say that you have answered what has been asked. You have not.

this is funny. out of all my notes from the first six pages i have you at the top of my scum list with TDC and springlullaby.

you have misread. you were at the top of my scum list WITH TDC and SL. not alone. please ask more questions and i will answer, it is actually helpful when you number them.

Also, don't pretend that there is a new case based on how I responded. I was even handed the first round through when I was curious if these were legitimate backed concerns or something more sinister. When you didn't give me answers I even asked again. Now, however, the time for leniency has passed.

I find the way you presented this case to be scummy (but in and of itself it could have been misinterpreted). I find the way you have responded to my questions of it scummier. I find the fact that you are doing the same things verbatim that you are finding such fault in scummy enough to push it over the edge.

i am not pretending. the way we handle ourselves in the face of adversity is a large part of this game(at least in my eyes). you find my presentation scummy. fair enough. you have voted. i don't think i'm doing the same things as you. Myk hasn't asked me any questions, he has just been standing behind you to, i guess, add pressure? i asked him to reiterate the questions he wants answered. you gave me what i believed to be rhetorical questions. we disagree on that point but it has been addressed above.


my example of Ecto's post was to simply show that someone had "similar" feelings about you at the same time that mine developed. what happened after said post is irrelevant to the point i am making. i am not trying to show you as scummy with his post, only to show that someone in the game at that point was getting the same thing off of you that i did. reading on after that has been helpful and i will continue to do so.

[don_johnson]

Have you answered all of the questions I have presented to you at this time?

yes, to the best of my knowledge.

My hostility should speak volumes because cordiality wasn't getting the job done. I dont care about your list. I care about the fact you have put a case forward that, unless I really dont know how to play this game, could have led to a lynch. When pushed saying it isn't a strong case does not change the fact it was presented as a case.

when were you cordial? you should care about my list. my "case" on you was not intended to lynch, but to find out more about you, which i have.

I said a case on me. The fact you have two others on the top of your SCUM LIST does not alter the fact you chose to pursue me. As you said I was on the top of your scum list (with other players) AND chose me as your case the logical conclusion is that you think I am scum.

chose to pursue? you forced my hand with your persistence, i have earlier stated that i would be glad to expound on my notes surrounding the others on my list. i ALSO stated that the only reason i had not done so in my initial post was due to time constraints. i did not choose you because i think you're scum, though you are making a good case here yourself.

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.

what don't you understand?

[don_johnson]

sorry, i must have missed the post where you were placed in charge of lynching. also, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence makes it a question. anyone can do that? yes. that doesn't mean its a good question.

i would like to know if everyone else is having trouble understanding why i quoted Ecto's post. you see, we are arguing semantics. "dodgy" can mean any number of things and i am beginning that to think that you and i have different ideas of what it might mean. sure you can refer to a dictionary, but the interpretation of a person's play and the words used to describe them seem to always end up with multiple meanings.

yes to the best of my knowledge. it means that i feel i addressed all pertinent questions.

1.Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

answered

Quote:
Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

answered

Quote:
Again, why did you leave out what you did.

why should i answer something twice?

Quote:
And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

missed this. please give me the context and i can answer it.

Quote:
Again, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

out of context, can't answer, not sure if i did, but probably ignored this as this was my point with you. i say,"you're scummy because x." you say, "again, why am i scummy?"

Quote:
And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

not answered. already answered once, why should i have to answer it again? goes back to the point i was originally trying to make about your "dodginess".

Quote:
What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

many

Quote:
You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

how? by posting it. Why? because it is pertinent to the game. what kind of answer were you hoping for?

Quote:
Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

did not answer. this is a set up question with an obvious answer. rhetorical, if you will.

Quote:
Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

Quote:
Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

rhetorical and baiting. why would i answer?

Quote:
Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

Quote:
What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

thought we covered this one twice already. this circles back to my original point.

i feel like if you saw this conversation from a distance you would see me standing on the right speaking calmly, and spyrex wildly gesticulating his arms as if fending off imaginary blows in some crazy new style of kung fu. what is your point? how am i scummy? because i admittedly brought up a weak case? did I vote? did I ask others to lynch you? i wouldn't be doing town any service at all without voicing my opinions and spurring discussion.

[don_johnson]

ebwoop: sorry, but i'm not your quote monkey. build your own case.

[don_johnson]

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

[don_johnson]

I don't think, after that, I really need to say anything more on the matter. I'll just let the others go ahead and read up and make a judgment.

This is not OMGUS. There is a reason why I did what I did exactly how I did. A "trap" of sorts if you want to call it that.

I will see if someone can see it. It really is obvious.

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

i suggest you speak for yourself, however, if you say "i'm doing to him exactly what he did to me," i will join you in the whole exploding head trick. that argument would also confirm that your vote is vindictive in nature and not based on solid evidence. so please, explain.

In my case, I pretty much had to out ourselves, because we both were playing poor, and would've been lynched. I figured the best solution was prevent a mislynch, and save both of us, in the 50% chance that the mafia decide to kill a mason tonight. (my percent isn't accurate at all). Not claiming would've put the town in a really bad position, I think.

yes, lynching a mason would have been bad as much as i dislike your decision. i don't know if you've

really

benefited town, only time will tell that. mathematically i think it will be helpful for town, however, the main detriment i see is that it mathematically helps mafia as well. water under the bridge...

[don_johnson]

Refreshing to see that this game can produce train wrecks without vollkan's participation, too.

don_johnson: Have you actually read through the whole thread now?
If SpyreX was dodging questions and is scummy because of that.. what are you doing right now?

i don't know how to stress this enough. i am not the only one to decscribe someone as "dodgy". volkan use the term to fend off an attacker around page ten or so. i stated that spyrex's earlier posts appeared as though he was playing in a "dodgy" fashion, and seemed to be deflecting questions with questions of his own. obviously i did not present this properly, however, upon further reading i found Spyrex's posts more insightful and explained that the case was weak. i have not followed the line of attack you suggest. also, if you read the thread you will see that i am making the best effort i can to answer all questions thrown my way. read post 563.

when this started i simply presented my opinions. i made little effort at turning them into a lynch, as not having read the whole thread, I didn't feel informed enough to vote. i am still playing catch up. i am currently on page fourteen. there are other observations i have made which i have not presented... yet. i feel like Spyrex has launched a vicious attack on me because i turned the slightest eye of suspicion his way. he has built a case around twisting my words.

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them

to the best of his knowledge?

Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar. where have i lied? read post 563. i am in no way "dodging" his questions, only asking that they be presented in a format which i can respond to. i have also pointed which of his questions i haven't answered and why.

mykonian: Which particular questions to don_johnson do

you

want answered?
What happened between "SpyreX, your OMGUS is not helpful" and you voting don_johnson, too, to change your mind?

thank you for pointing this out. Myk's behaviour in this has been ultra scummy. he has not put forward any questions on his own and yet seems to be buddying up to Spyrex. my last post to Myk was this:

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

then he says he didn't get his answer and votes.

i am also very srprised that volkan has not chimed in here. it hadn't occurred to me, but reading through the thread i was surprised how volkan and spyrex piggybacked so quickly from their vote on a mason to voting SL after mr. fixijj placed his vote. they very quietly followed each other from lynch to lynch. it is hard to tell if they were doing it together or if it was one folloowing the other, but they did a good job of distancing themselves because as of page fourteen, noone has mentioned it. i would like to know why volkan has been distant in my argument with spyrex. he originally came out with some support and an accusation of cherry picking, but now that spyrex has done virtually the same thing to me(see his shark tank post), he says nothing. i also inferred that spyrex's reaction to my initial suspicions warranted some pondering and again he has no comment. yet in his own defense (i believe from around post 204)he says,

The tone of the attacks is relevant, in case you missed my reasoning in previous posts, because it shows prejudice.

i have mentioned the tone of spyrex's attacks. they should be relevant. also,

If a player cannot show that they are actually thinking about who is scum, then the most reasonable conclusion will ordinarily be that they are themselves scum.

an "omgus" attack of this magnitude should warrant his attention. either way. why is he distancing himself from this attack on me? if he thinks i am scum then by his own admission he should be jumping in. if he thinks spyrex's reasoning is truly "omgus" then he should be jumping in. is he on vacation?

i am withholding my vote until i am completely caught up, which has been my stance from the start. at this point, though, i feel i have it narrowed down.

[don_johnson]

sorry, i am realizing the "buddying up " i noticed was addressed by certain players. i will comment later as i read more.

myk: are you serious? that's what this whole discussion has been about. please reread. i offer reasoning behind the whole post. i was posting my

thoughts

. i was put to the task of reading through 18 pages, i couldn't very well quote whole posts into my notes. as it is i already have more pages of notes than there are pages in this thread so i quoted the parts of posts which stood out to me. then i wrote my thoughts next to said quotes to serve as a reminder to me as to my initial impressions of this thread.

it is why i explained earlier that no matter how i present a case it is going to look like "cherry picking", a phrase i am noticing that volkan uses quite a bit. tell me volkan, with the enormous length of your posts and this thread overall, how is one to present

you

with anything that

doesn't

resemble cherry picking?

myk, please reread. if you have a specific question you want answered, or there is a specific quote you would like me to go over and explain then let me know. first you vote a mason(alleged) for "pressure", now you seem to be piggybacking...

[don_johnson]

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

What strawman? If you're accusing somebody of a logical fallacy, then you should be able to explain it.

i have 17 pages to read. as i am reading i am cutting and pasting things that seem to stand out of everyones posts. selective quoting to me is more efficient than quoting entire posts if most of what the post contains seems irrelevant.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted?

just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently.

because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

let me expand on your concern about my selective quoting from post 108 as it seems to be a sore spot:

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it. you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy. you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

does that make you scum? no. it just means that you are good at deflecting suspicion. did it arouse my suspicion at the time? yes. can we apply this to whats going on now? of course. reread the last few pages and watch what goes on around you and i...

[don_johnson]

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

What does the use of italics have to do with anything?

are you kidding? you brought it up, asking why i left out the italicized parts. you said they represented your feelings. i am saying that to me, at that point in time, your feelings were irrelevant to what i was reading. really? you are asking me this question?

How does Ecto's post affirm your stance considering when questioned that you haven't still given me the answers to those questions?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand this question. what questions have i not answered now? ecto's post affirms that someone else thought you were avoiding issues. what don't you get? this is my point with you, i give you evidence and you simply dismiss it and then ask me a question.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

See it might have been different

had you actually said that

. You didn't. You half played the game - the bad half. So, no, thats not going to cut it.

again i am in a no win situation with you. i have been trying to cooperate. how is that bad? i am convinced now that i am right here, and that nothing is going to cut it.

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it.

you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy.

you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

How, when Ecto had asked me specifically why I thought she was strongly pressing the issue is my post explaining why I thought it was strong a distraction?

because i think it is. it looks like one to me. it is my opinion that your post is a distraction. i bolded where this question has been answered in the above post.

How do my quotes have nothing to do with the case versus showing the examples of my thought process?

you just don't like it when people disagree with you. the case itself is flawed. the quotes(as i said before) make sense to me. i understand how we get to the neutral tell which is what it appears you are disputing. maybe i'm reading it wrong, but when i look at that post i see the quote wall as a distraction. maybe i have worded my response wrong in that

you

think the quotes pertain to your case. to me they seem to undermine it. i don't draw the same conclusions that you do from the quotes. k? in my mind that translates into them not "pertaining" to

your

case.

How am I trying to prove the vote on me is scummy, versus talking about why I disagree with the rationale for the vote (double question: as of 108, was I voting for Ecto?)

you say the actions are "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". does anyone else see the circular logic employed here? you were voting ecto. how is that relevant?

If my goal as scum was to push a lynch forward on one of those two why would I have asked for answers and clarifications instead of taking a harder stance?

this is the start of a wifom. you are asking me to explain

your

actions. if you were identified as the "wedge" it would probably not be in your best interest to continue down that road(if you were scum). however, like i said, this is wifom.

Why would I want to "push the game forward" if my goal was getting one of Ecto and Volk lynched?

maybe to get suspicion off you and back on someone else. what are you not getting? you are doing now exactly what i saw you do then. at least you are consistent.

If the last line of 108 is what made it so irrelevant - why are you not even remotely saying it and using a paraphrase that isn't anywhere near what you keep saying?

the line didn't make it irrelevant. the content made it irrelevant. the line stood out to me as a summary of your desires at that point in the game.

And, the best ones:

If this was such a huge component of your case against me - why didn't you bring it up like this until now?

Why did you, over and over, dodge the questions presented?

Still, what question have I dodged?

are you referring to the case i said was weak? the one i dropped three pages ago? i have not dodged your questions. i am answering them to the best of my ability. i made all of these points long ago, just not in the format you could digest(apparently). i said your play was "dodgy". you are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions. as i said, this is not inherently scummy. after reading the beginning of this thread you looked scummy to me. at this point the only reaon i have to call you scummy is your badgering of me, which is not necessarily scummy. which is why i have not voted.

[don_johnson]

what you missed in the hard stance to neutral tell is this: it is your opinion. mine is different. i followed the train of thought from hard stance to neutral tell. it is actually quite common in this game as many people take hard stances to gauge others reactions. reading through your quotes in that post, i did not come to the same conclusions as you. simple.

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages. i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were. i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?


you wrote your feelings in italics and asked me why i didn't include them in my post. i cannot answer that any better for you than i already have. my belief is that just because you put it in italics doesn't make it true. had you not italicized it my statement would be," just becuase he writes it doesn't mean its true."

What in the name of everything have you given me as "evidence" for any of this aside from Ecto's quote? The latter half will get brought up later at the end of this little dance.

what evidence do you need to back up the claim,"someone else saw your play as evasive." i think a quote from "someone else who saw your play as evasive" should be sufficient. stupid me.

I laid out the myraid of ways that would have "cut it" - so, unless you think I'm lying to trap you... no, that doesn't cut it.

can't say you are lying, but you are certainly reaching for something, what is it again? oh yeah:

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

suit yourself.

You have dodged me every time I asked you to present the examples of questions I had not answered.

i disagree. i am still trying to answer all questions you have. i have pointed out previously, just because my answers are not "acceptable" to you, doesn't mean i haven't tried to give them to you.

Now, you're trying to alter the basis of this, because I, in fact, am not letting you dodge anymore.

i must have missed the part where you let me dodge anything. your questions have been incessant.

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

[don_johnson]

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages.

i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were.

i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

Why not say that, versus:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever. many

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged. this is not a question. it is a request.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.
probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

"This is simply my opinion, I have no factual backing." is much better than "I totally did this, over and over." When you haven't.

you are twisting my words out of context here. Why not say that versus what i've said? because when i originally read the thread it

SEEMED

to me that you were in fact dodging questions and i

THOUGHT

i had found evidence. your subsequent observations actually helped to clarify my case as "weak", thus leading me to look at my evidence

AGAIN

and decide why it had grabbed my attention. so oi found your play "dodgy"? so did Ecto at that point in the game.

Also, why no mention of the "I never said you were dodging questions" versus your later statement?

i don't understand this question. maybe the reason you are not getting the answers you seek is because of how you phrase your questions.

my opinion of you has changed considerably throughout our discussion. i have tried to explain that. twisting my words as you have above is why i called your earlier argument a "strawman". as i have said, i brought my suspicions to light and your reaction has considerably changed my view.

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

Coming out with a weak case? No.
Holding on to it? Yes.
Doing yourself what your weak case was built around? Yes.
Lying about what had previously occurred? Yes.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? Yes.
Playing the victim now? Yes.

Between holding onto it, lying about it, and doing the things you were quick to come out on me on. Yes.

I find them scummy and I can not for the life of me find a town reason for it. So, yes.

who has held onto it? spyrex
doing yourself what your weak case was built around? debatable. twisting my words out of context is just as weak.
lying? being made to look as though i am lying is more like it.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? i believe your hostility should be noted and yes, i am surprised that noone else has taken issue with it, especially a certain someone. staying on you? really?

i'm

staying on

you

?
Playing the victim now? i believe i am being victimized.

AGAIN: how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?

[don_johnson]

Also, and please argue this - at the minimum you have a definitive lie due to not paying attention about me voting Ecto as of 108.

my apologies on this, i am reading the vote count in post 100 improperly. it does not, however, change my issue with the post. what other statements have you taken umbrage with?

i am off to work but will respond in the morning. as far as you twisting my words, i am saying that because you are putting my quotes together out of context. to me that is twisting words. i don't know what other evidence you want in regards to what my opinion of your opinion is, so i cannot address that further without more direct questions. i will gladly answer your other questions.

[don_johnson]

How is putting forth a case that is weak and holding onto it when it is questioned finding the best lynch?

How is dodging questions put forth to you if you have nothing to hide helping push forward the best lynch?

Who do you think is the best lynch?

these are terribly loaded questions. putting forth a weak case and holding onto it is not trying to find the best lynch. saying its a weak case and trying to move is at least a step in the right direction.

we disagree on whether or not i am dodgin your questions. but you are correct that dodgin questions does not help find the best lynch. however, i am not dodging. i am trying to answer you as best as i can.

who do i think is the best lynch? i have no way of knowing that right now. it would be stupid of me to try and answer. however, i have other input:

maybe you thought i was deflecting you earlier when i mentioned it, but have you noticed what has been going on around you and i? spring lullaby has all but dissappeared, and mykonian and op are piggybacking on your case with no input. i have asked mykonian rather directly what discrepancies he is riding here and he has no response. op seems to be standing by the "his reasoning is just off." why am i being held to such a high standard of investigation principles when others around me are not?

[don_johnson]

ebwop: saying its a weak case and trying to move is at least a step in the right direction.

should say: saying its a weak case and trying to move on is at least a step in the right direction.

[don_johnson]

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

*facepalm*

My last post was 613.

Orto accused me of strawmanning in 617.

Unless you are attributing me the ability to time-travel or something, I couldn't have possibly called out Orto to explain himself.

true. i feel as though my comments are being jumped on, though. but of course, no one cares abouyt "feelings" here...

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

Ugh!!

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares. I do not agree with this
As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here and that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

Fine, we don't know whether what he italicised is true. That is not the point.

You accused him of NOT scumhunting when he very clearly was. It's not a case of different "analysis". It's a case of you of completely bastardising a quote and strawmanning him.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

Wow...you've earned a *HEADDESK*. You were the one who misrepresnted

him

. There's no question of a "preconceived prejudice".

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

[don_johnson]

also, why are you allowed to use the phrase "strawman" but noone else is?

[don_johnson]

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

You said he wasn't sucmhunting. The italicised showed he was. What's so hard to understand about that?

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously.

just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true.

are we to believe everything we read?

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

I'm saying that it's funny that you would say he is showing prejudice when there is no evidence of that and, moreover, you were the one who was pulling a BS attack on him.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he

said

he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

[don_johnson]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

Whether or not the statements I made were true isn't the issue. It is the fact that the statments - my scumhunting - were made. By removing the italicized sections you were denying that my statements were made.

whether or not the statements are true

is

the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

The italics weren't in the original posts - they were added in AFTER YOU ACTIVELY OMITTED THEM.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Not "I said I was" -

the statements removed were the scumhunting.

They are direct factual evidence.

bolded is your opinion. it is not direct factual evidence of anything. anyone can pretend to be scumhunting. it is whether or not people believe in the truth of your statements that counts.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

I put this first for a reason. Why don't I (and Volk apparently) aceept explanations:

actually i did.

Shit like this. Thats why. If people attacking you are being dense, CALL THEM ON IT. This just reinforces the fact you are dodging and not answering things.

funny how you leave out the quote in which "actually i did" explain myself.

[don_johnson]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false. Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

correct, which is why voting patterns should be relevant.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1) Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.
2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3) Whether or not you voted is meaningless. If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

interesting how you decide which facts affect which points. i didn't realize you were the all knowing voice of wisdom. in case anyone cares, here is the whole quote:

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

what was that phrase again? cherrypicking?

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple: it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

from wiki:

A "Straw man" argument (also called "setting up a straw man") involves

mischracterizing your opponent's position

in order to present a weaker argument than they have actually given, thereby allowing you to defeat it. It usually involves subtle changes to the given facts of the matter, or

minor changes to wording

that lead to semantic differences in what is said.

spyrex made it seem as though i was pushing the case against him when in fact i had explained it was weak. that to me is mischaracterization. making an out of context quote wall could very well be considered minor changes to wording. no?

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is:

Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.

2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.
3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.

1) maybe that is your issue, but it is not mine. because:
2) what is bolded above is what i WROTE IN MY NOTES. it did not refer solely to that single post. it was my general feeling of spyrex's play. i have explained this several times now but you choose not to accept it. that post just grabbed my attention. he also wrote in that post:

There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

why would huntin' begin if he was already doing it?
3) what? i said that i didn't believe him to be scumhunting. he said there was "factual evidence" that he was because the post contained his feelings about who might be scum. I DIDN"T BELIEVE HIM. so i wrote in my notes :

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

4) absolutely. how many times do we have to cover the same ground?

[don_johnson]

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

who is don attacking? that's right, folks... noone! how many times do i have to say it? i posted my thoughts on this game prematurely. sorry, but i found spyrex to be scummy IN MY EYES after about 5 or 6 pages of this thread. you all had the advantage of knowing him for much longer than i did when i formed my opinion. not to mention i offered evidence of another players frustration with spyrex because of extremely similar issues during that same time period in the thread(which people, for some reason are not saying is evidence). [sarcasm]it would be evidence if spyrex wrote it, though, because we should believe everything he writes.[/sarcasm]

just because he writes his opinions on who is and who isn't scum doesn't necessarily mean he's scumhunting.

why do people choose not to understand that statement? what is evidence to you may not be evidence to everyone.

the general feeling i had on him up until that point was what i wrote in my notes. at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted. for some reason people are not willing to move on.

i have answered the same questions asked several different ways. mykonian himself has still not answered mine. am i to understand that you are voting me because i "attacked" a protown player? because i have recanted, and i think in the last few pages if you are not understanding my reasoning you are simply choosing not to.

volkan: why is everyone else here allowed to have opinions but me?

How is that relevant at all to the fact that you denied Spyrex posted scumhunting?

this was explained. i did not "deny" he posted scumhunting. i simply DID NOT BELIEVE HIM and I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO.

interesting. i am really feeling like a second class citizen around these parts. maybe if i ask you a few hundred times why you don't agree with orto you will come up with a better answer.

There's a distinction between "not quoting everything"
and "cherrypicking". I didn't quote everything you said, because the bit I wanted to address was the first sentence. Nothing in the rest of that paragraph in any way affected the first sentence

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

Do you mean Syprex's question list? If so, then it was out of context, but there was no problem since he wasn't misrepping you.

this is your opinion. i felt misrepresented.

1) Where did you explain this before?
2) Why didn't the italicised text have any bearing on your "general read"?

1) what? explain what? that i didn't BELIEVE spyrex to be scumhunting just because he wrote that he was? cause i have explained that quite a bit now.
2)

it did. I DIDN"T F*%^ing BELIEVE IT.

may i finish catching up now?

[don_johnson]

okay then.

Vote: Volkan

[don_johnson]

As for do I think DJ is scum? Look at his vote on Volkan. Explain to me the backpedaling and lying in his "case" on me, weak or not. He is playing to survive and just happened to pick a real bad target to throw out a case like that on.

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

why? are you saying that voting patterns are irrelevant in the game of mafia? if so, is my vote relevant now?

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

in regards to this:

I have provided reasons for my 'feelings'. Don't forget that suspicions are rooted in feel as there is no concrete evidence in the game of mafia. There are no finger prints, no DNA, no video surveillance. The game is not a simple equation of x + y = z. There is a human element which is constantly changing. I have to decide how I think you would act as mafia based on limited information. Gut and feelings are all a simplistic way of expressing a subconscious understanding of the events going on around you. I am a poker player, so things like 'gut' which is really just a flash recollection of a player (or the collective of all opponents) and how they respond to certain actions is crucial - even though the game has many statistical factors to it. I will admit I am fairly new to playing mafia and I have not translated those instincts to the game yet. With that said, I used the word feel in the instance you quoted in the same manner I would use the word 'believe' or the phrase 'in my opinion'. I just felt like poking at you because you jumped on it with your code of vollkan.

Justifying yourself with the poker analogy isn't going to work.

What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

We don't have fingerprints, but we also have more than just a person's poker faces. We have words and arguments.


As of now, I see that Shez has made a very substantial case. I cannot hope to respond to something that detailed with the reading I have done thus far, so I will from hereon post on my reading instead of current events (since the meta case appears to have floated off into the ether....)

please answer the following:

1) were you modkilled in this "other" game for posting information pertaining to said game outside the appropriate thread?
2) why did you not immediately ask the mod to remove this post from this thread as it is "obviously" not part of this game?
3) to all: has this ever happened to any of you?
4) why are you allowed to pish posh away your accountability for this post with

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

and this:

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this.

That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

i only need to look through your history? why does everyone else need to produce evidence to back up their claims then? with that "craplogic", couldn't i just offer this thread as my evidence of you being scum? funny how you don't "accept" the reasoning...

socrates knows your logic here is bullshit.

please explain.

[don_johnson]

this is an excercise in futility, but here goes:

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

Saying you answered all my questions when you yourself said you hadn't addressed some is lying.

if you have questions please ask. name calling is unproductive. just because you are good at masking questions and asking rhetorical sounding questions, doesn't make you the purveyor of truth.

Changing the initial "question" in backpedaling from "Dodging suspicions and questions" to "Dodging suspicions" is lying.

Saying you never said the former is, well, lying.

how is explaining my notes lying? i wrote down my "feelings", you asked for clarification. i clarified. my notes were:

Seems

to still be dodging accusations and questions

keyword is both italicized and bolded.

So, you're all caught up now? Ready to jump on the bandwagon and everything?

yes. i like your use of the term "bandwagon", too. like i said: suddenly my vote is relevant. apparently i may not use my voting pattern in my defense, but it is fair game for my prosecution.

Where's the rest of these notes?

right in front of me. you'll have to ask better questions than that.

As an aside, I really am just sad to see "Volk is REALLY GOOD AT THE GAME SO LYNCH HIM KTHX" as part of the rationale for this debacle.

i hope this does not refer to me, because that would make you a liar. all of the arguments about volkan are being explained in full. you and volkan just choose not to accept others rationale.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really? condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself? how would you define that?

[don_johnson]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

[don_johnson]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)

am i the only one here who feel that this is an insane request? you have shot your own argument against me in the foot. let me guess your response:

"please explain this more."

there is no accusation here. fact= you are being hypocritical.

[don_johnson]

(This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.

this is all subjective. i have swept nothing under the rug. i apologize if your logic frustrated me, but you were(are) attacking me over a weak case, completely diregarding whether or not i voted, the fact that i admitted it was a weak case, and the fact that i produced evidence that the behavior pattern i called you on was also picked up by another player during that same time period in the thread.

3.) You

seem

to be a lying scumball. Does that change the revelance? Are you now not allowed to question it because I have phrased it as my feelings?

not sure what you mean by changing the relevance, but when you say "seem" i am not expecting hard evidence. just like volkans "gut" feeling on fixijj. seem in no way implies factual backing. yes, i may question it, but condemn you for it, no.

4.) Yea, considering you put him at l-1 before you bothered to explain yourself, its a bandwagon. Your vote is relevant - your little list isn't. The fact that you didn't vote for me doesn't alter anything in what you were saying to me - much like spewing out a crap case and admitting it was crap doesn't alter the fact you did it.

everyone runs gambits. i wanted to see reactions.

I DID NOT PUT HIM AT L-1

. that was mykonian. i wanted to make the point that my voting pattern should be relevant. the fact i didn't vote for you should be relevant in that i listed you as one of my top suspects at that point in the game which i had completed reading. i didn't come in half cocked gunning for your lynch without all the facts, i merely found it interesting that someone on my list was calling for a deadline.

[don_johnson]

You accused me of cherry-picking and hypocrisy. I got you to identify a post: 658. I got you to identify the "hypocrisy" - which was me allegedly cherrypicking after attacking others for it.

Now, I want you to specifically identify the cherry-picking. I don't think that's at all unreasonable of me.

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

There is nothing in Spyrex's post which can be called "subjective". Calling someone a liar is NOT namecalling if they do lie. And his description of your actions is, again, objective - you did backpedal by relying on the word "seems".

his opinions are subjective. he

thinks

i lied. i did not backpedal on the word seems. as far as i can tell i did not backpedal at all. i put forth my notes. there was discussion as to what they meant, and i have presented exactly what it is they meant. Ecto's post confirmed that i was not the only person who read spyrex as "dodgy" over the first six pages or so. the word "seems" is extremely relevant here. and it is extremely paralleled to your ixfijj comments. you just choose to dismiss it.

The fact you didn't vote and the fact you admitted weakness are immaterial.

i thought it was irrelevant? now its immaterial? sorry, but i believe votes carry considerable weight. we will have to agree to disagree. i brought my case to halt a deadline and spur discussion.

[don_johnson]

And is it so weird I am on don? He is the scummiest player in this game! He has voted twice, and both times he can barely get a case together.

don_johnson has voted once. i never voted for spyrex. i have actually tried to make that quite clear in my posts. plus, i am experienceing with volkan what several other players have already in this game, which is his circular logic and frustrating play. his constant demand that i explain my explanations and continually repost my evidence is exasperating. at least spyrex was making a point with me and driving my case into the ground. volkan is just avoiding the issue.

post 658: italicized is subjective material. these are opinions you present as facts. they are opinions.

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false.

Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1)

Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.

2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3)

Whether or not you voted is meaningless.

If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple:

it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

And I find it incredibly scummy of you that you would point the finger at Spyrex by saying he boxed you into a "no win situation". News flash:

The situation was "no win" because of your own refusal to answer at first instance. It's entirely your fault.

Spyrex is in no way to blame for highlighting your sins.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

Nowhere have I said that every use of the term "strawman" has to be fully explained at first instance, but it has to be explained if asked. Now, when I accused you of strawmanning Spyrex my reason was fairly simple. Spyrex posted one thing (a post containing scumhunting), which you instead cherry-pick from and, rather than attacking what Spyrex actually said,

you attack a fantasy-post of your own creation.

I hate you guys so much right now.

<3

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

]

1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is: Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.
2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.

3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.

bolded is the statment you "cherrypicked". here is the original post:

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

by only quoting and responding to the first sentence with subjective opinions you are misrepresenting my point of view. hence: strawmanning.

@ myk: your votes have been all over the board. if you intend to leave your vote on me then i would like an explanation besides, "because i believe spyrex". spyrex has his reasons, and though i disagree with them and am exhausted by talking with him and volkan, his reasons at least resemble having validity.

[don_johnson]

i never launched a "case" against volkan. i only recently described anything he has done as "scummy". i voted to prove a point and the subsequent discussion has led to me offer "evidence" of his hypocrisy(which i have, if you've been reading). my vote was a gambit. i did it to prove the relevance of votes themselves. heres a little of my theory:

day 1 of a mafia game is full of almost entirely wifom arguments. there is usually nothing but subjective arguments all around. opinions are all we see, and opinions are, by definition, subjective. there are a very few things which can actually be tracked and quantified in the game of mafia. the main one being voting patterns. i believe analyzing voting patterns to be one of the purest forms of scum hunting. you all may think i am dumb, or a newb, for my presentation of my findings, but one of the main reasons i post is to spur discussion. it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

call it what you will, but fixijj is one of the few who seems to have been paying attention to what has been going on around the central arguments of this game. kudos to him. my stance on voting has been consistent from my first mention of it.

unvote

.

[don_johnson]

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

For spurring discussion?

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing?

short answer, yes. you have facts which you

believe

prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

worst is an extremely subjective term, and again, nothing is absolute on day 1. i personally believe that voting patterns are the most likely area where scum slip up. for instance, why do people notice bandwagoning? it is not necessarily a scumtell, but a pattern of bandwagon votes with no "evidence", or "weak evidence" produced to back them can be a good indicator of a player trying to simply work towards "a lynch" and not necessarily the "best lynch".

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed. i have only unvoted in order to further avoid the chance of volkan being hammered without due process.(i believe he was still at L-2). his circular logic(however subjective it may be of me to believe), still has him on my radar. my issues with volkan revolve around the fact that he is unwilling to admit that he may be wrong about

anything

. he refuses to concede any ground no matter who he is debating. that is troubling to me.

[don_johnson]

i did not put him at L-1, or try to. i noticed that he had been unvoted. this doesn't change the fact that i think he is the best lynch for today but iw will have to adress that later as i am off to work. however, accusing me of putting him at L-1 or trying to sneak in a lynch is ridiculous.

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

I didn't demand continual reposting.

What I did was simple: I wanted to force you to give evidence for your assertion of cherrypicking so I first forced you to identify a post. Then I demanded you explain where in that post. It's not forcing you to re-explain yourself; it's just forcing you to become more specific.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it seems to me.

the most sensible thing you've posted yet. read this out loud. it makes no sense.

[don_johnson]

Your vote was to prove a point, so did it? Stated simply, what was it? Please don't regurgitate the conversation with Vollkan.

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

yes, caught up. still trying to sift through a ton of information. my vote

was

to prove a point. the point was that

my

voting pattern should be as relevant as anyone elses. THAT VOTING PATTERNS ARE RELEVANT. they are actually some of the ONLY concrete evidence we leave behind as our posts are subject to much more opinion and conjecture.

i was condemned for bringing a case against spyrex. why? because it was weak and i could not entirely explain my reasoning in terms that spyrex and volkan found acceptable. i found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting. i disagreed. in your own experience with him you found it extremely frustrating to get information out of him. i have not once said that i shouldn't be held accountable for a weak case. my point with the voting is that there were other facts in my argument with spyrex that were systematically avoided and decreed as irrelevant.

volkan further pushed that point on me when i brought it up in my defense, so i felt inclined to see how he would feel if i voted for him. in his subsequent reaction i feel i really got a handle on what i have been referring to as his "circular logic". i am not the best talker in this group and do not present my thoughts in a way he finds acceptable, but when i have approached him with evidence, it is summarily dismissed. maybe i'm not using terms correctly, but it doesn't matter how i explain it, volkan and spyrex think i am scum and therefore interpret everything i do as scummy even when its not. there is one

major

fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

how can someone so immersed in mafia theory ignore this fact? you can say you

think

dj is scum, but to say a hundred percent, based on the fact that he presented one weak case in the face of a deadline? it is illogical. i am accused of backpedaling, but how else is one to react under such an onslaught of insults and dismissal of evidence. heres my take right now:

best lynch: volkan/spyrex

because scum volkan=scum spyrex and town volkan=town spyrex. if you haven't seen the intense buddying up and hand holding going on between these two then you are not paying any attention. i put volkan ahead of spyrex because i

believe

him to be scummier due to his circular logic, evidence denial, and scummy behavior(the misplaced post is at the top of my list. i don't buy it.)

how do i find the best lynch, i look for scum, but expect to find town, because the odds say we will lynch a townie day 1, so we better damn well sure make it a townie whose going to cough up some information.

sure, scum dj would be agreat lynch. but what does town dj leave behind having been lynched for nothing more than weak play? and what kind of night kill strategies does that open up for mafia to further confuse us?

personally, mykonians erratic voting of the last six pages puts him at the top of my scumlist. however, the odds say he's town and lynching town mykonian does us no good as it also opens up various night strategies to pit town against town. plus i need to read more of him to discern some of his reasoning behind his votes, as his reasoning should be relevant as well.

spring lullaby is not here to defend herself, and though that shouldn't give her a reprieve, the fact that my interaction has been mainly with three or four players, i have to make the best calls i can, and right now i read her as a neutral tell. i don't find her reasoning as scummy as others do.

fixijj is screaming town, op and ortolan are claimed masons, who by (i believe) spyrex's math can be lynched on day three if our hunting reveals no scum in order to confirm them safely. TDC seems to have fallen off the map and has become a neutral read to me.

scum ecto would be a good lynch, but again, town ecto leaves us much less(in my opinion) than town volkan.

i know who i am and i know i'm not the best lynch. so i have to decide from that standpoint, and from where i'm at, volkan leaves us the most to work with.

vote: volkan

these findings are based on a combination of my "gut" feelings about everyone here and what i feel to be relevant evidence. it is all subjective. i contend that day 1 is entirely wifom and that our best course of action is a mathematical lynch based on our best suspicions. spyrex has his and i have mine.

[don_johnson]

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

this entire paragraph was presented as evidence and it is all connected. you chose to split it up and respond to only the first two sentences. they were not the only two sentences written here in my defense.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it seems to me.

read this out loud the way it is written. it makes no sense. its like saying "so you brought your suspicions of me out in the open because you thought i was calling for a premature deadline? of course you did, because you're scum."

i'm not making fun of you. i'm pointing out that your logic is seriously flawed, just like your denial that my not voting for you is unacceptable as evidence of my true intentions.

[don_johnson]

i believe, and stress the word believe, that volkan and spyrex are pretty much connected at the hip. in my book, volkan coming up town would clear spyrex. it is my subjective opinion based on their play. i would be pretty surprised if others felt differently.

i believe volkan scummy because of his play. spyrex had a vested interest in defending himself from my accusations. volkan stepped in, asked for evidence and still denies that the evidence was supplied. i unvoted to bring him down from L-2. call it a show of good faith. his obstinate desire not to validate my voting confirmed my opinion of him and i have decided to put my vote where it will stay.

what i initially said was that i believe scum had exposed themselves through voting, referring to mykonian. fixijj posted his suspicion. in my mind this justified my whole "voting pattern" theory and i was glad to see that someone else was paying attention to what was going on around the big show. i plan on doing more research of everyones voting patterns, but i feel mykonian has been the most noticeable. in fact, if you read back you will see how i am extremely puzzled by his "pressure vote" on a claimed and corroborated mason. though i do feel strongly about this, i stressed above that the odds are against myk being scum, so i have to figure that into my vote. also, the major flaw in my theory is that evryone puts as much stock into voting as i do. mykonian might be a flagrant voter for all i know. which is why i'm at :

]

these findings are based on a combination of my "gut" feelings about everyone here and what i feel to be relevant evidence. it is all subjective. i contend that day 1 is entirely wifom and that our best course of action is a mathematical lynch based on our best suspicions. spyrex has his and i have mine.

[don_johnson]

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

lie. prove this statement please.

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

I never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.


Which is it there, scumbalinia?
"I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations (yet when pressured I immediately change it to accusations because there is no evidence of questions) but, srsly guys, I had no intention of showing any of this because he did the SCUMMIEST THING of wanting a deadline in a stagnating game...which, maybe, in all of my discourse I brought up once because it was my secret super best move." [/quote]

although i must admit chuckling at "scumbelina", this is clearly a strawman. you have taken two quotes out of context and tried to tie them together. you are very smug, by the way. you seem intent on the fact that my teeny tiny brain is incapable of having more than one thought. way to go sherlock.

[quote="spyrex]However, if you seriously believe that at this juncture that has one iota to do with our alignment... well, shit. That theory is so bad it wouldn't stand up under the light of a tiny lamp, much less the light of day.[/quote]

why? it is interesting how you simply dismiss the argument here without so much as a shred of evidence.

Just to be clear, you have opted to "lynch for information" that gives no relevant information versus "lynching who you think is scum."

Yea.

Thats even stupider when I lay it out in one line

.

that is even more stupid when i lay it out in one line.

"stupider" is, well, not really a word. i am opting for who i think is the best lynch with the given information. you are hellbent on a lynch based on your "gut".

Tags fixed.

[don_johnson]

mod can you fix my tags, please. and merry xmas!

[don_johnson]

yes, ecto, i have answered both of your questions. please see my posts above. its very difficult not to address spyrex. if you notice, he was just caught in a lie and simply dismissed it. i think he was the one who originally proposed the "lynch all liars" theory, so i am interested to see where that goes. 762 and 765 are my post numbers where i respond to your questions..

spyrex: you combined two quotes from different posts and make it look as though they were posted together. that is strawmanning as it misrepresents what i said and entirely removes them from the context in which they were originally stated. let me put it simply:

i posted my thoughts on your playstyle in order to counter your move of asking for a deadline.

changing:

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

to:

I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations

so how bout that lie? by your own logic that makes you a good lynch. is it possible that you just misread? because i was never given the luxury of such an excuse.
is strawmanning. plain and simple.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: don't know how that happened, but underneath the quote should read

is strawmanning. plain and simple.


so how bout that lie? by your own logic that makes you a good lynch. is it possible that you just misread? because i was never given the luxury of such an excuse.

[don_johnson]

One last little quip about this lynch for information:

The postulate is that Volkan and I must be of the same alignment because we have shown agreement Day 1 - be it scum or town.

So, would not a corollary to this be that two players that have absolutely no agreement be of different alignments?

Based on that, why not get lynched DJ? Since you and I could not agree that the sun would come up tomorrow at this point if you were town wouldn't that make me scum?

(I still want you hung, but see how silly this train of thought is?)

duly noted. but i stated that these were my opinions. everyone is going to have their own opinions about the information gained from a lynch. i see a corollary between the two of you. i am not trying to tell everyone that my theory is absolute. for instance: if volkan is lynched and flips scum then you would jump to the top of my list. that doesn't make you scum, just puts you at the top of my list. if volkan flips town, you go to the bottom. the bottom of

my

list. it doesn't make you town. what everyone else gleans off of the lynch is their own choice. i will be responding to ecto's latest question soon, but i don't have time now. i am realizing that i am not as good at explaining myself as i think. sorry for that. happy holidays...

[don_johnson]

Oh and,

@DJ: ANSWER ECTO'S POST 774

sorry. i was celebrating christmas. haven't had a chance yet. i even mentioned that previously, but whatever.

Ok, this is still not showing

how

you proved your point. Did you vote only to prove a point? Specifically, what about you voting for Vollkan shows that voting patterns are relevant? I'm not getting this. Do you think Vollkan is town and your vote on him was scummy...or...what? I understand that you are going on and on about voting patterns being relevant, yeah yeah, we get that, please go on. How do you apply that specifically to what you did, and where do I see your successful application of it?

did i vote only to prove a point? first vote, yes, second vote, no

what about voting for volkan shows that voting patterns are relevant? if you believe that voting patterns are relevant then this would prove nothing to you. my motivation for this course of action was this post by volkan, refuting a portion of my defense(bolded is add on):

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

(regarding spyrex)

Irrelevant.

volkan seems to be explaining that whether or not i voted has no bearing on this case. i can't disagree any more than i do. why? because this is a game in which we have very little quantifiable evidence. start a spreadsheet on a game of mafia and track evidence. what would you track? when one player attacks another? how could you? someones attitude and tone in posting is completely subjective. volkan proved that with his "gut feeling" about fixijj. by saying he had a "gut" feeling he elicited in other player(s) different interpretations of what that meant. if you read it strictly for what it is, their is no mention of volkan finding fixijj scummy, but someone interpreted it that way. so it is not quantifiable to all, only to those who choose to intepret the post. so now let's read this:

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

this is a lie. sure, spyrex admitted that he "misread" my original post and that is an entirely reasonable excuse. but if we interpret things the volkan wants us to and seems to demand us to then this is a lie. there is no gray area. but i won't condemn him. posts and opinions are entirely subjective. spyrex produced what he believed to be evidence of me lying, however, that evidence was a quote wall of questions that i had either

thought

i had answered, or that i thought were rhetorical in nature. considering the daunting task of replacing into this game and the fact that i had posted suspicions based on five or six pages of reading and had not yet caught up with the entire thread, i deem these reasonable answers. but that's besides the point. it is all besides the point. what we believe is subjective to our interpretation of events. though votes can be interpreted, they are one of the only QUANTIFIABLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE that exist in the game of mafia.

what can we keep track of? 1) lynches and nk's. they give us role revelations and help us narrow down our lynch choice.

2) votes: votes are the only thing a mod keeps track of during the day. it is the only piece of traceable evidence that exists in the game of mafia. we have already realized through Spyrex's lie, that lies do not equal scum(unless spyrex wants to admit to being scum). also, unless he wants to admit to being scum then we must accept that misreading, misposting, or otherwise misunderstanding another players position is poor play, but not necessarily lynchworthy or in any way proof that someone is scum. if you go by timing then i would have to contend that spyrex's lie is much more damning and scummy BECAUSE it came at a time when i am actually near the top of the lynching list(while his vote is on me as well). but i digress, that is just my opinion.

so what the hell are you talking about, dj? this:

votes are always relevant. yes they are open to interpretation, but NEVER irrelevant. they indicate quantifiable intent to lynch. suspicions do not. you can interpret actions as scummy, but that does not make them so.

i cannot explain everyones votes, but i can track them which makes them evidence. which makes voting relevant.

so why am i voting for volkan now? for this very reason:

volkan has stood behind a wall of logic this entire game. he has attacked more than just me with the accusation of using "craplogic". his posts are logical and he prides himself in his ability to differentiate between what is "real" and what is "crap". he has even agreed that "voting patterns are relevant". so why in this "land of logic" does he dismiss

my

voting pattern? it doesn't indicate that i am town, and it surely doesn't indicate that i am scum, but for it to be "irrelevant" to a case against me is simply

inconsistent

with "logical" volkan(i'm sure he has an answer). i cast suspicion on spyrex for "feelings" i had about his play, but all of the logical evidence i have produced in my defense has been "dismissed".

okay, so why volkan over mykonian? because i believe this to be a game that is entrenched in mathematics and probability. we can suspect scum all we want, but suspicions are fallible as we have already shown with spyrex's lie that posts are fallible, so all the suspecting in the world will not defeat math.

the odds are that whoever we lynch is going to flip town.

this is a mathematical truth that any logical player must accept. the only people who know anything other than their own role 100% on day 1 are mafia. we still have NO CONFIRMATION that we have town masons, so we cannot deny the math. mykonian has what seems to me a scummy voting pattern. he has been

consistently

erratic and has earned a place on top of

my

scum list. however, volkan's denial of my voting pattern being relevant to my defense is a major inconsistency in his theory driven meta. so here we go ecto, hit that button on the way back (cherry picking)machine:

Also, how on earth can you justifying treating something as generally scummy without regard for the particular circumstances?

the timing of my entrance into this game, the fact that i did so to prevent a deadline, and the fact that i never voted and admitted almost three posts into the argument that my case was weak and that i actually didn't find evidence to substantiate my suspicions are some pretty damn PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES that are being written off in my defense.

do i think volkan is town and my vote on him is scummy? i think he is scum but must accept that the odds say he's town. my vote on him is not scummy. my first vote i will equate to his initial "self-vote". i used it to draw attention to my voting pattern and whether or not its relevant. everyone seems to be agreeing that patterns are relevant so my initial vote did nothing but spur discussion.

where is my successful application? of what, tracking voting patterns? not sure what you mean here. i am hoping to build a spreadsheet of the votes in this thread(and others) to actually design a "workable" theory, however, in this game i believe that looking at voting patterns will be extremely helpful. in short, i have not successfully applied my theory. i have plans, but the ensuing discussion from my vote has led me here. much like volkan's self vote, i am not sure how much more of this theory deserves to be discussed in this thread or in a "theory forum" but i will be clear: my vote on volkan is not based solely on his voting history. the major factor in my recent vote is the glaring inconsistency i see in his prosecution of me. his abandonment of basic logic like mathematics and the relevance of my vote to my situation. these i see as inconsistent to his meta which he so profoundly preaches.

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

noteworthy tidbit: has anyone bothered to check on who was up for a lynch when spyrex asked for a deadline and i intervened? SL, with 3 votes, and both spyrex and volkan on the wagon. relevant? hmmmm...

[don_johnson]

ebwop: sorry, i do realize that if op and ort are telling the truth about their role pms then they would know more than just their

own

roles in a game, and would not be scum. i maintain, however, that at this point they are not confirmed and that this is directly relevant to the mathematics of this game.

[don_johnson]

Eh, still not quite convinced vollkan is not scum, but don is just convincing me more and more that he is scum. ("it was just a gambit"). I am going to

unvote

vollkan, getting him out of L-3. I don't like the mykonian lynch myself, so I am just going to go ahead and vote

don_johnson

and putting him at L-3.

op, being one of two (alleged) masons i am puzzled by your vote. if you think i am the best lynch then i would think it would be in your best interest to campaign for it. but why not hold your vote? i would think it would be in town's interest to have the mason's holding the hammer as opposed to those of us who are unconfirmed. putting me at L-3 is rather harmless, but i would like to see a little more thought behind your vote. just because you are a mason doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.

I think him pairing vollkan and Spyrex is funny, considering I fell into that trap in another game, where the scum were using Spyrex just to turn around later, and lynch because of it. (Llamafluff, remember Spyrex?) I don't think their alignments corrolate with eachother at all. I think a you/vollkan pairing is a lot more likely and probable than a spyrex/vollkan pairing, to be honest with you.

pairing the two of them is my own take. i don't expect everyone to buy it nor am i trying to set it in stone, its just my feeling. but this:

This is complete crap. I could be scum that has pulled the wool over town-Spyrex's eyes. Spyrex could be scum trying to suck up to me, knowing that if I am lynched he will look good for supporting me. It's actually far more common for scum to distance/bus each other than it is for scum to actively defend each other (not that that makes voll&spyrex scum less likely, given the wifomic nature of that point, but it simply refutes the idea that scum usually look like pals)

refutes nothing. i am glad that volkan is at least seeing the wifomic nature of this statement, but this is a good example of someone denying the mathematics of probablity. this statement is not quantifiable. in

this particular game

there is as much chance of scum buddying up as there is of them bussing each other. the only people who would know any different at this point would be scum.

[don_johnson]

i hope people will read the actual posts and not your synopsis.

i never said i answered your "show me where i was dodging questions bit." i didn't answer it how you wanted me to, but i did answer it. in fact, what i said was that in posting my notes i had said "it seems" like spyrex is dodging questions. when you pressed for evidence i admitted the case was weak. i also have explained that my notes were based on the impressions i got from reading the thread. ecto got a similar impression. just because you made a big production out of your version of the events doesn't make them true. boy, funny how i mention that part about you lieing. its so much different than you beating that horse for like, what, the last ten pages or so?

oh and:

noteworthy tidbit: has anyone bothered to check on who was up for a lynch when spyrex asked for a deadline and i intervened? SL, with 3 votes, and both spyrex and volkan on the wagon. relevant? hmmmm...

do you think i just posted this for shits and giggles. if

you're

town maybe you'll start to open your mind a bit here.

[don_johnson]

noones pointing the finger at you, funny how you seem to think that everything revolves around you. do i need to reiterate that i have never voted for you?

i am pointing to facts. not conjecture or opinion. it is a fact that yours and volkans voting patterns are similar. it is a fact that after i broke up the deadline, volkan, while still backing you with posts and suspicions in my direction has branched away from voting with you. it is a fact that volkan's math is off. it is also a fact that your math is off. 2/3 is based on your opinion, not in fact. the actual chances are 2/9(assuming 2 scum). it is your opinion that i lied. it is no fact. and no, your alignment is not the

only

quantifiable fact available to you. voting patterns are entirely quantifiable. how can you deny this?

[don_johnson]

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is

everything

irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Thus making the entire argument about Spyrex and Vollkan being scumbuddies completely wifomic. The hallmark of a scum relationship is not attacking or defending, but inconsistencies - attacks which seem a little too vigorous, defending which seems off, changes of behaviour that just don't fit, etc.

this argument is not

completely

wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never

vote

me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but

unvote

, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

[don_johnson]

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is everything irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Because the basis of my attacks was more reasoning in an attack on Spyrex.

Your reasoning is poor whether or not you voted, replaced, admitted weakness, feared deadline, etc. I also didn't say they were all irrelevant - timing of entrance and deadline can extend grace, but they don't extend to a leave pass.

And I did not say the choices were "back it up" or "admit that it was

weak

". The choices were:

By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

There's a fundamental difference between "weak" and "crap" (ie. error), which I've explained already.

i understand here, but i am wondering why the post by ecto that i submitted is dismissed in this matter. i wrote in my notes "

seems

to be dodging questions and accusations". when asked to back it up i clarified it by stating that his play appeared "dodgy" in general. i understand why that looks crappy, but when i back it up with ecto's post i don't see why it's still considered total crap. someone else found it difficult to get something out of spyrex during that time period in the thread. it is a similar gut read to the one i got from reading the thread. i see that as a reasonable defense. should it give me a leave pass? no, but is it unreasonable to offer as evidence? no, its a concurring opinion on spyrex's

play during that particular portion of this thread

. i believe that makes my reasoning better than simply "poor".

this argument is not completely wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never vote me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

What's the inconsistency?

votes=concrete evidence. yes they are open to interpretation, but it is a fact that you consistently voted for the same players spyrex was voting, and for an extended period of time. then, you simply agreed with him and backed his reasoning against me. this while denying every shred of evidence i offered while

not

voting with him. that is a statistical inconsistency and that is the only point i am making. to me this showed you distancing your vote, but still working together for a lynch. your claim temporarily debunks this theory, but i am within my rights to point out this inconsistecy. also, the inconsistency in your logic is what i believe to be this denial of evidence. spyrex misinterpreted a post of mine earlier. i called it a lie and you have no comment(thus far). if his excuse of misinterpreting what i said is reasonable, why is my "misinterpretation" of his earlier posting not? like i said, he is pushing for a lynch, so his lie has much more damning potential than my "lie", which i contend he manufactured through his "gameshow" post.

The fact I didn't vote for you is just a product of the fact that you weren't my number one suspect, despite being seriously suspected by me.

reasonable, but still results in an inconsistency. how sure are you that spyrex is town? why do you feel this way?

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but unvote, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

He didn't actually vote, but he stated he was going to do so.

My claim was not a L-1 claim, but I had been requested by two people with expressed intention to put me at L-1. I wasn't going to risk running the gauntlet of "refusing to claim", when it was clear the chips were most definitely down and I wouldn't be able to avoid claiming by any means.

yeah, i wasn't trying to plug anything here. just give my opinion.

who do you think is the best lynch and why?

[don_johnson]

who do you think is the best lynch and why?

can you directly address this question.

It doesn't make it any better. See, "dodging" is a very specific action; contrast it with SL's accusation that I am "ungenuine". You can pinpoint posts and so on where there is dodging. You can't pinpoint posts where there is "ungenuineness" (as we saw, when SL did try to do that).

It's like saying that you had a gut feeling he was "strawmanning". Strawmanning, like dodging, is something you do that should be clearly visible to others. The fact that you only substantiated this with "gut" is therefore bad, even if you weren't specificallly refering the to one post, a claim which I am skeptical of because it seems bizarre ot make a general observation mid-way through.

i am still not getting why my "gut" feeling on spyrex through the first several pages of this thread is not substantiated by the fact that Ecto not only had a similar read on spyrex, but posted his thoughts on the subject. how is it bizarre to want to post my thoughts when someone is asking for a deadline?

]6. Day will last until a LYNCH occurs, or when activity is too low, in which case I shall issue a deadline. If no majority occurs before the deadline a No Lynch shall become the final result of the Day.

there is no mention of "requesting" a deadline here. this might be a newb error on my part but i found the request peculiar. is it normal in these forums?

earlier i posted the definition of "strawmanning" in defense of my use of it. this is open to interpretation. what would you call spyrex's "synopsis" of events that he laid out earlier? ot me its chronologically incorrect, and its a one-sided view of actual events.

spyrex's "misinterpretation" was him thinking i had stated that i had evidence against someone. my misinterpretation to which i am referring is my original posting of "spyrex seems to be dodging questions and accusations." when pressed, i clarified this standpoint as spyrex seeming "dodgy" in general. i backed this up with ecto's post, which you have dismissed and still have not explained. is it because i am using another players perspective in the matter to justify my own? i could almost buy that, but i still don't see how my statement is still

completely

unsubstantiated in your eyes...

spyrex and I have been in agreement in our reasons for a long time now. When I simply agreed with him on you, though, it was because I had greater suspicion of others (SL, and then changed to Myk). It's not an inconsistency, unless you are seriously suggesting that Spyrex and I should always be voting the same way.

not suggesting that at all. i guess we are not on the same page regarding quantifiable evidence. you shouldn't always be voting the same way. you have for a significant period and if one was to build a flow chart of votes, one could point to the

actual

inconsistency here. to me that is interesting. it may sound wierd, but in a game where

everything

you read has the possibility of being lies, i believe that a certain reliance on factual information is necessary. i was pointing to myk's voting inconsistencies a few pages ago. this latest one seems to continue his erratic pattern, not to mention that he has voted for two town power roles

after

they already claimed, and i believe he threatened a vote on fixijj(a soft-claim) during that time period.

MOD: THE VOTE COUNT IS WRONG. I

UNVOTE

IN POST 818.

Duly noted and corrected. Thanks!

[don_johnson]

spyrex's "misinterpretation" was him thinking i had stated that i had evidence against someone. my misinterpretation to which i am referring is my original posting of "spyrex seems to be dodging questions and accusations." when pressed, i clarified this standpoint as spyrex seeming "dodgy" in general. i backed this up with ecto's post, which you have dismissed and still have not explained. is it because i am using another players perspective in the matter to justify my own? i could almost buy that, but i still don't see how my statement is still completely unsubstantiated in your eyes...

So my misinterpretation was thinking you had evidence to backup a statement you were making.

incorrect. the evidence was there and is even more damning now. i pointed to it, i just didn't jump up and down screaming,"there he is, lynch him!", as i was not convinced he was the

best

lynch. i think you may be the only one who missed it. your misinterpretation was thinking i that i had claimed to present evidence, when in fact, i did not. try reading my posts. just because you

think

i'm scum, doesn't give you a free pass to dismiss what i'm posting. what would?

[don_johnson]

volkan. i see your point. while typing my last post to you it was kind of a light bulb over the head moment. though i feel players reads can justify each other i now see the gaping hole in my original argument with spyrex. i think we may have been on tangent thought patterns. i will substantiate, if only for posterity. at the moment i have a couple questions for all.

i will have to defer to more experienced players on this, but what stands out to me as "scummy" about volkan's claim is the breadcrumbing. why would a doctor breadcrumb at all? especially admitting that he would do it as scum or town(i believe volkan referenced another game where he did it as scum)? i get why an investigative role would breadcrumb(to get doc protection), but even

then

i don't think this is common or necessary on day 1. so why breadcrumb as a doc? can some of you who have more time in this forum please chime in.

oh yeah, and this:

dj has engulfed himself in a ball of fire and a few people happily pour more gasoline over his head. Lynching him is probably both inevitable and informative, but I'm not convinced he's scum.

is a gem. i may ask for permission to put this in my sig at a later date.

[don_johnson]

i am still waiting for others takes on the "breadcrumbing". doesn't that jeapordaize the "most powerful" town role? is it common for doctors to breadcrumb in order to back up their claim?

i can't agree with spyrex on the cc being mishandled here. it is late, but

Instead, he waits until HE is put on the chopping block to counterclaim.

i think this is expected. having no idea what other roles may be in play i am inclined to think that the doctor would remain hidden until absolutely necessary.

also, one thing i didn't realize until he said it was that english is a second language to myk. this factors into the argument that volkan is presenting himself better. not an excuse, but a factor... it certainly screws up his word curve.

[don_johnson]

myk was on the block, but i don't remember him being a definite lynch when volkan claimed.

volkan: why did you bring up another game? you say you didn't create the wifom, but you actually did. it is as null a tell as the breadcrumbing, but it certainly casts doubt on your motivations.

also, you were accused of cherrypicking because you did it. there was nothing meandering about the case against you.

[don_johnson]

If my claim was accepted, it was either going to be Mykonian or yourself, and don't forget that I had my vote on Mykonian so that's what I would have been pushing.

why should i not forget this?

[don_johnson]

this is an interesting piece of conjecture. these opinions, however, are based on the fact that you are not scum. at this point, we can't even be sure that either of you is town.

mykonian has been hammering me as hard as you have from the beginning. funny how the fact that i did not vote for spyrex is irrelevant to my defense, but now you seem to point out that you were not voting for me. you didn't produce very much in the way of pushing a lynch on mykonian, in fact, to me it appears that you left your vote on him for just such a reason. it is plain obvious that i will be lynched, so why would my scum partner come out of the shadows to prevent it? if anyone, you have shown the propensity for attacking me from a safe distance. mykonians voting pattern is erratic, but it is consistently erratic, and his vote on me comes from way back. again you talk about "distancing norms" as though you have some sort of strategy figured out. the mathematical fact is that scum are no more likely to distance than they are to buddy up in this particular game. when i looked up "finding the doctor" in wiki, it clearly states that the doctor is the most powerful town role and should be kept hidden until the last possible moment, and that that fact often results in situations like this one. if you want to play by the book then we'll play by the book.

vote: volkan

i cannot see this one sided agenda, coupled with breadcrumbing and a premature claim as town behavior.

[don_johnson]

Well I hope I'm wrong.

like you said before, i don't think it matters. we have one scum, its just a matter of "at what cost". would have been nice to have some more info from him...

[don_johnson]

Ohh, as an aside (and an avenue for discussion) - I'd like all of you who lynched Volk to explain to me why what I said about how it went down was ignored and he was power lynched. Especially not the mason thats alive.

what is this in reference to? what did you say? i'd be glad to give my take. i've reread the entire thread and, though unfortunate, it seems pretty obvious why volkan was lynched.

vote: mykonian

[don_johnson]

very plausible, but like i said, volkan pretty much lynched himself. he played terrible for a doctor. he grabbed the spotlight on the first page of this thread and argued with just about everyone. he never accepted anyone elses logic in what was basically a gigantic wifom discussion on self voting. he pointed to his meta and used it to justify his actions. apparently, he fakeclaimed doc before, too. myk stood strong against the claim from the get go. to be honest, i read the wiki guide and it seemed like volkan was 'textbook" fakeclaiming to nail a townie. acording to that guide myk's cc made much more sense. personally, i was already on the volkan wagon when he claimed, so i already had my suspicions.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: also, i had stopped listening to you out of frustration as well. not to beat a dead horse, but in my reread i find your play in the early part of the thread just as dodgy as i did the first time through. though i see now that my pov was tainted as a third party observer, the way you argued with fixijj and ecto was real roundabout. i'm not saying "scummy", but definitely attention getting. in fact, the mason claim seemed to break up your argument with fixijj and the whole issue of "policy" seemed to fade leaving fixijj "unsatisfied".

[don_johnson]

Mind cutting out the damn voting?

i thought about that after i hit submit. myk can't self vote, though, and there should only be one other scum, so i wouldn't worry about it yet. but yes, noone else should vote until we agree to move on.

[don_johnson]

DJ - Yea, we know my stance on him. The fact that even now its "tsk, tsk, Volkan totally did it to himself, how was I to know?" bothers me. And apparently "missing" anything I said after the claim by Myk.

didn't say i "missed" anything, or "how was i to know?". i explained why i didn't believe him. i wasn't the only one on the wagon. i didn't believe you.

[don_johnson]

I've no intention of dealing with SL or DJ today. Like I said, I'd rather get these few details squared away and a scum dead. Then we can go back to hairpulling and general distaste.

so i guess SL is the hair pulling and i'm the general distaste?

i find the idea of a serial killer in a ten player game unsettling as well as far fetched. however, town is definitelyu overpowered in the protection department. i played in a game with a

hitman

. they were able to get around protection, not sure how common they are in these forums. that said, i don't agree with the afore mentioned strategy. fixijj should make up their own mind.

fix: why the softclaim? you mentioned you wanted to stay alive longer, but i don't recall you ever being in danger of being lynched.

[don_johnson]

however, town is definitelyu overpowered in the protection department.

Why do you know that mrfixij is town?

i don't. i just don't agree with the current suspicion. he has claimed. should i not give him the benefit of the doubt?

[don_johnson]

however, town is definitelyu overpowered in the protection department.

Why do you know that mrfixij is town?

i don't. i just don't agree with the current suspicion. he has claimed. should i not give him the benefit of the doubt?

It's more that your "benefit of the doubt" reads (paraphrased) "he's definitely town, but let me speculate about how weird the setup might be to accommodate him".
It's all the benefit and little of the doubt.

you are reaching. it is

your

paraphrase. not my words. i am speculating based on the information i have. fixijj's claim carries weight. to me it seems highly improbable that they are scum. possible, but improbable. the

why

of fixijj's survival is entirely wifom. do you think it a fruitful discussion for town? i would prefer that fix answer my original question: why the soft claim?

[don_johnson]

a fixijj post is definitely in order.

[don_johnson]

do you really think a full claim to be appropriate?

So, unless the scum have two RB's, fix is lying.

most of my assumptions have been wrong this game, but two mafia roleblockers

and

an extra night kill doesn't make sense at all. does it?

[don_johnson]

Considering I'm most likely dead tonight, yes.

No, it shouldn't, hence I think he's lying.

i have turned this over in my head for the last half hour and all i can say is "holy fucking quandary!"

we need to operate on the distinct possibility that you may be lying as well. TDC needs to post. SL needs to post.

fix: what do you think of spyrex's claim? how does it fit the scenario that you are who you say you are?

[don_johnson]

not here. i am vanilla.

spyrex: no insanity clause?

[don_johnson]

i will await claims from TDC and SL.

[don_johnson]

spyrex: just to be absolutely clear, can you paraphrase or better yet quote the results of your investigations?

[don_johnson]

i cannot buy the idea of two 2 person mafia in a ten person game. that means there are two nightkillers left. Fixijj has claimed to be one, so i must:

vote: fixijj

any one of us could be lying about their role at this point. occam's razor points to SL, but fix has claimed scum. town needs to lynch scum today, so why chance it?

[don_johnson]

@DJ - applying the razor to this means that it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other which one of Fix or SL gets lynched.

i am starting to feel like a patsy. why are both you and TDC pushing for a lynch of SL? if its half a dozen of one or six of the other, why would we not lynch the 100% confirmed scum?

do sk's ever have investigative immunity? can't the "godfather" role have immunity? fix softclaimed day 1, why wouldn't a nightkiller take him out?

my vote stands for now. there are too many variables still out there. sorry if i am misapplying the razor, but i feel better with a sure thing.

[don_johnson]

vote: springlullaby

dead cop confirms TDC.

[don_johnson]

i was thinking TDC might be the opposing godfather there at the end. nice way to throw confusion fixijj. funny, you guys knew there were two groups from day 1.

i just tried to play dumb towards the end.

spyrex, you had me. no doubt. not sur if myk knew i had a godfather role when i came in, but his counterclaim saved my ass and basically won us the game. wierd setup, but fun. thanks for the game. i'm interested to read other mafias thread.

[don_johnson]

we thought about killing fixijj, thinking he was cop, but he would have blocked us anyways.

[don_johnson]

I really can't believe it. This should have been a town win. Night three, both scum teams know what is going on, where the other is. Why didn't they shoot each other?

i thought fix was sk and spring was town until fix turned up rb. if i had not targeted spyrex i was going to nk TDC thinking he was an opposing godfather. the idea of a forensic expert actually seemed as though it might fit into a set up with two mafia. so yeah, i figured "i'm mafia, kill the cop". i didn't think the other mafia would target me because then we both lose. i only voted SL to keep in character. i almost claimed vig, but i'm glad i didn't. it seemed like a good time to take a back seat.

replacing in at 20 pages or so was ridiculously hard as scum. i really didn't think we'd get anywhere near endgame.

[don_johnson]

I guess the masons were partly to blame for the lack of crosskills, having claimed we made obvious confirmed town targets which decreased the likelihood of them even contemplating targeting someone who would turn out to be from the other scum group.

we actually thought our kill went throughon night one, too. and props to you ort. your late game strategy had me utterly confused, but it seemed to take everyones attention off of me. you are right, though, your confirmedness prevented the night 1 cross kill. without that it seems as though town was doomed.

[don_johnson]

i had godfather. hoped to draw an investigation. i thought you had to be cop.