Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Wuffles_II]

Vote: Arafax

Maybe if I get you lynched my fax will stop eating my paper

[Wuffles_II]

lol, I find that overexcited responses to random votes are generally a sign of a noob. Whether this be a noob scum or noob town response is impossible to say at this point.

rawr!

[Wuffles_II]

Ok this is boring.

Unvote, Vote Elias

Pressure wagon time.

[Wuffles_II]

@ Thestatusquo: Dude, the fact that you couldn't read 1/3 of a page since primate's last vote count either makes you extremely stupid or extremely scummy, neither of which I find particularly endearing at this stage.

Not enough to take my sexy pressure vote off yet though, I'd like to see Elias' reactions to it. ^_^

But yeah,

FoS: Thestatusquo

[Wuffles_II]

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a FOS.

Yeah man, post 8. Read the thread, lawl. It's only been 2 pages

rawr!

[Wuffles_II]

I don't support a claim for anyone at this stage.

I think we can take TSQ's suspicious action as more of a stupid mistake than a calculated scum play. However let's be sure to remember this in future if he makes any more "mistakes" like this one.

And TSQ - I too feel that the random vote wasn't a "Relevant" post - but it still contradicted your claim about #44 being ziliu's first post. Your reply was irrelevant in that respect.

Read the thread more carefully in future or it may end up getting you killed. ^_^

[Wuffles_II]

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

not at the time, it wasn't, and I feel that I have already been perfectly clear on the part of your post that was incorrect.

This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted.

I WAS CALLING YOU UP ON THIS SENTENCE, NOTHING MORE. STOP MISREADING MY CRITICISM. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU MISWROTE THAT SENTENCE, AS HE HAD POSTED TWICE, NOT ONCE.

I have already mentioned that several times.

God.

[Wuffles_II]

See, now THAT is relevant information O_O

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah, same here. And the preview button and submit buttons are in opposite positions here than on 'sal or WifoM, dammit.

[Wuffles_II]

...Hey, it worked this time!

:D:D

[Wuffles_II]

Ahem, back to business. Well, with this TSQ stuff cleared up, lets put some pressure on the lurkers, eh?

Vote: Luna

.

[Wuffles_II]

Dude it's page 4 and this is your second post...

Think harder. Failing to contribute to conversations is often a scum tell.

[Wuffles_II]

hah, you should have seen Newbie 269, that just finished today - Vismaior lurked the whole time, and emerged at the crux, when there were five players left with 2 players with 2 votes each. At this point, lurker Vis comes and kills the townie, Nk's me, and is left with one townie and two mafia the next day.

You're absolutely right about one thing though, that your argument is total WIFOM, and for that reason, please do not attempt to disprove my arguments using logic like that.

Using WIFOM to counter my arguments is not the way to prevent lurker hunts, lawl.

[Wuffles_II]

Hell, I don't care about lurkers either - but with the TSQ scandal dying down, I wanted to keep discussion going.

Lurker hunts, at very least, always provoke conversaton ^_^

[Wuffles_II]

Then read the thread, dumbass.

No need to be rude man. It's easy to make someone look stupid whilst still perfectly maintaining a facade of politeness :p

And yes, after rechecking, you are correct, luna has made more than two posts.

For that, I think that deserves an

FoS: Wuffles

[Wuffles_II]

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

I despise these sorts of plays.

Deli, that post served no purpose whatsoever except to make you seem far more suspicious.

When a person votes for someone, it is because they believe that person should either have pressure put on them or, in your case, that the person is scum and should be lynched. The emphasis you have placed on your vote here leaves me in no doubt you wish other people to reread your reasons for voting TSQ.

HOWEVER.

Your post contains no relevant new information garnered, no further suspicions, no additional TSQ slips.

Therefore, you are contributing nothing.

If you are contributing nothing new, then there must be other reasons for your vote that you are not telling us. Otherwise, there is no need to restate your opinions; the very fact that you have laid a serious vote on TSQ is more than enough to show the town that you believe TSQ is scum.

So, if anyone is to take the quoted post here seriously, then, logically, they can only assume that, since placing your vote on TSQ, you have discovered new information that you are unwilling to disclose.

If you're town, I can't possibly think of any reason why you wouldn't want the town to know this information, that proves your vote confirmation is justified. (If I were cop, then, knowing that the Doc could protect me, I would claim if I had caught a mafioso, so that can't be it.)

So, to conclude my logical string of thought,

I vote j00 until you come up with a good reason for that post. And if not, then, dude, you just made a f***ing terrible play.

Unvote, Vote ChannelDelibird

[Wuffles_II]

[quote=CDB]Incorrect. Another, equally logical explanation is that there is no new information to warrant a removal of a vote.[/quote]

The fact that you posted a "confirmation vote" with no reasons behind it strikes me as very, very suspicious; at best, that post is pointless as you're already voting him; and confirmation votes mean nothing. At worst, the purpose of your post is to attempt to get a bandwagon going on a suspicious townie.

Also, your reasons behind voting TSQ are not strong enough to warrant my jumping on your bandwagon; it could very well have been a mistake, placing a person 1-off lynch, this early in the game. I would have lynched the hammah voter, obviously, not the person who just as easily could have made a mistake.

Also, you give an additional reason behind your pointless "confirmation" vote. "TSQ has been acting scummy ever since"

You're going to get laughed out of 'scum if you don't post anything to support these claims. -_-!

HOWEVER.

TSQ, you're saying someone is DEFINITEVELY scum based on four damn replies, none of which contain any content? Dude, no. How on earth can you support this claim?

Give reasons or, as much as it agrreives me to be aggreeing with the sock puppet, I'm going to end up on your wagon.

[Wuffles_II]

So, you have no reasons other than "I don't like TSQ's posts".

Well, you know, I really don't like your posts either.

However, I'm voting you because you feel SO strongly as to Vote TSQ and then CONFIRM vote TSQ - with no evidence other than a gut feeling.

Yeah. Every time you reiterate that your posts are based on nothing, despite that, you want a lynching bandwagon (on, granted, a somewhat impolite player).

No one would follow a pointless bandwagon through to a lynch, unless they themselves are mafia.

:trout:

[Wuffles_II]

MMK.

1.

Lurking? We're on page 2, ferchrissake. Thread's barely been open.

I also generally disagree with the rest of post 45.

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

MMK, here’s your first “confirm vote” on TSQ. This vote was initially based upon his getting Elias almost to hammah. No actual reasons are given here, aside from that you “disagree”. Why you disagree, you do not say.

2.

The fact still remains that debatable minor lurking is much less scummy than what you did.

I disagree – I feel that only an absolute idiot would deliberately put someone that close to hammah page 2. So yeah, that makes TSQ a minor idiot for not checking the votecount. But, and I CANNOT emphasise this enough, this does not necessitavely make him scum.

Hey, Sock-puppet. Could you please point out to me this mythical "HARD EVIDENCE" that you described?

Also, that was the SECOND TIME you'd "confirm voted" TSQ.

Wow, I really do not think I was wrong to call you out on it.

Start talking fact, or you may regret it ^_^

[Wuffles_II]

Congratulations sock-puppet, you've just alleviated the Wrath of Wuffles for the time being

See, now that post I can agree with. While I find TSQ's 1-off hammah vote to be potentially suspicious, I have to agree that he has been posting a whole heap of "read the thread, noob" or thoughts to that effect.

That sort of playing style really annoys me, and, since he hasn't replied to my previous request,

Unvote, Vote TSQ

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah, that's me, Wuffles, the destroyer of worlds...

Seriously, though, there are certain phrases that just kick my SCUMMOMETER into overdrive - "Confirm Vote" being one of them.

And yeah, I am often very aggressive in slightly slower moving games - but in large games, where everyone is posting like madmen, that I just sit back and wait for people to do stupid stuff.

This is currently my second game on 'scum - I know Primate/Spoon/Pod from 'sal and Wifom. He recruited me into this game. 8)

So yeah, it's no surprise you've never seen me before

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - WTF, ANTHONY. YOU SO MODKILLED, OMFG.

Are you retarded...you're DOC and you just DELIBERATELY got yourself MODKILLED?

omfg.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP II - Sarnath'd by the mod

[Wuffles_II]

Primate, can you get ghetto blacklisted or something? That's a really bad thing to do to the town, and if he's done it before, he should definitely lose the right to play mafia on this site...

[Wuffles_II]

It's only lurking after the thread's long enough to put the player's posts into perspective. At the start of day 1, when there's so little to look at, loads of people won't be able to put much forward. Ziliu could just have been online at a different time to most of the other posters and therefore not posted 'as much' (despite everyone only having one, two, maybe three posts at best). It's not as if anyone else was or was able to post any content at that point, and therefore it

is

a false accusation.

QFT.

I'm going to reread and come back with a list of top suspects.

[Wuffles_II]

Why don't you repost the thing then, with correct labelling of accusations/observations/pecan pie?

After re-reading, TSQ seems to be in the absolute thick of everything. I'm not quite sure what to make of that right now.

[Wuffles_II]

Why would you be disillusioned? Sure, G.A. was a dick, but thats no reason to be self-defeating!

Unvote, Vote Wuffles

[Wuffles_II]

Unvote

That was an attempt at ironic satire, with the whole "don't be self-defeating" sentence at the start of the post.

Sorry, I got carried away...

[Wuffles_II]

Guys, this is distracting us. I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

I'm sorry man, but I am totally unwilling to take this argument for what it (doesnt really) appear.

That is a totally emo argument with no logic behind it whatsoever, and reeks of desperation, to say the least.

ANY

scum player could be all "HEY STOP GOING AFTER ME IM TOWN".

TSQ, you just made a terrible play error, whether you're vanilla, mafioso or power townie.

Vote TSQ

Claim please.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP: NO ONE VOTE TSQ UNTIL HE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO CLAIM. I HAVE PUT HIM AT -1 TO HAMMAH, DO NOT VOTE HIM YET.

[Wuffles_II]

I'm not sure about everyone else - but TSQ's last post does not justify me taking my vote off.

TSQ, before anyone lynches you, could you please reiterate why it is ok for you to use the "ZOMG IM TOWN ITS POINTLESS VOTING ME" but not for mafia to do so? Because I think that is the only way you can validate yourself at this point.

Elias, could you explain your last post, please? I feel that TSQ's last defence, the ZOMG defence, was more than illogical enough to hammah.

Any one of us could use that defence at any time. I cannot reiterate enough how terrible a defence it was for a player at 4 votes.

[Wuffles_II]

I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

Post 184. He makes it clear that anyone who is voting him is either a bad townie or scum. It COULDNT be that he's being voted because HE's a bad player, and is exhibiting scum tells, nooo.

After reading that post, I just realized that a player who believes that anyone who votes him is either a bad player or scum is going to get lynched out of spite, if nothing else.

Personally, spite has little to do with it - but it does annoy me that there's a player that thinks he can get away with posting such a terrible defence without getting lynched for it.

rawr! (Expression of emotion, depending on mood)[/quote]

[Wuffles_II]

"Quick hammahs"? Dude, Day one has been going for over three weeks.

And yeah, I'd hammah right now if I could, but unfortunately, I can't.

At worst, we're lynching a vanilla, and I will have some serious suspects Day 2 if it turns out TSQ is telling the truth.

You say the last post was made out of desperation. Well, a better strategy then would have been to coolly analyze the situation rather than the ZOMG defence you made.

My mind's made up.

[Wuffles_II]

To be fair though, Arafax should know exactly how suspcious he will look on day two if TSQ turns out to be town.

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah, maybe you're right. So, then, that leaves us with...Arafax as suspect #1?

Because I don't think that makes sense.

Plus, it is ridiculous for TSQ to assume that Arafax should check every single one of his posts - the ones that aren't scummy have no need to be examined further.

Would you quote me saying "I like pie" as a reason to get me lynched?

I hope not.

[Wuffles_II]

No, it's not rediculous. When looking through a thread to build a case, you look at every single post a person makes, and see how it affects your case. At least that's what I do, wuffles. I'm not saying that he needs to post/read posts of mine which are referring to naked girls being pushed past my dorm room, but if he is going to call me out, he should at least read the posts that are directly contradicting what he's saying. Not doing so is skimming, and just attempting to make me look bad, which is not something town would do. If town was building a case and saw "Hmmm... I'm not really right about any of this" you would assume they would stop building the case. That's not what arafax did.

I can buy the confusion shtick up to a point. And that point is where he says he finds me suspicious for something he not only had a conversation with me about, but agreed with me about. That is uber scummy behavior, folks.

Ok, I'm happy with this, after re-reading, you are actually correct to a large extent. I went a bit blind after reading your "Anyone who is voting me is either a bad player or scum".

But yeah, perhaps it's a good idea to let you live a while longer.

Unvote

[Wuffles_II]

WOW

You just said that reconsidering opinions is a bad idea man.

When someone believe their opinion to be wrong, they can do one of two things.

1. They can stubbornly dig themselves deeper, which you are most certainly doing

OR

2. They can admit that they were wrong.

I was quite adamant about TSQ was because of his ZOMG post. I still believe he is decidedly scummy, but, you also should admit that his defence was impressive enough for a player such as myself to re-think my -1 to hammah vote.

At least I am able to admit when I am wrong.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP:

Also, Arafax, EMPHASIS on "re-reading". I checked, and TSQ is right. When I get a free moment, I'll go back and find the posts in question. I'm sure TSQ will as well.

[Wuffles_II]

The main reason why TSQ is becoming a really jumpy topic of discussion for me is because he's so damn hard to read.

He seems to post really really scummily, and then all of a sudden starts making sense again.

I am merely basing my votes/unvotes upon his most recent "style" of posting.

Is anyone else seeing this? Because it's killing me.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP -

Votecount

please primate?

[Wuffles_II]

TSQ, one thing Arafax has done consistantly is post his reasons.

The fact that he places FAAAAR too much emphasis on your -1 to hammah vote right near the start is irrelevant.

But he just needs to realize that it would be beyond stupid, BEYOND retarded, hell, even beyond WIFOM for a mafioso to DELIBERATELY put anyone at -1 to lynch that early in the game.

It would not serve a mafioso any good at all to do so - just look at how much scrutiny TSQ has come under since he did that - He's now going to have to be absolutely on his game for the rest of Primate Mafia, alignment be damned.

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

rawr!

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - The last sentence should say "Putting someone at lynch -1,

that early in the game, whilst having no desire to lynch that person,

is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

[Wuffles_II]

I'm going to be very, very careful about my next major reply - several people in this game seem to be quite adept at blowing things out of proportion, perhaps myself included.

TSQ - apologies, I read your post I was referring to with correct syntax.

I am a very aggressive poster, that is for sure. No way will I ever go under the radar in any mafia game I have played (or am playing) to date. It's understandable why I would be receiving attention.

But yeah, a big check on CDB, TSQ, and Arafax coming either all in one, or in parts, this weekend, I hope.

[Wuffles_II]

TSQ, I was NEVER voting you based on the -1 to hammah vote you placed.

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

TSQ - You know damn well that the reason why I was willing to hammah you. You weren't making any logical sense and were not

Now, I'm going back to do the biggest freaking PBPA ever. One on both WUFFLES and TSQ. Also, maybe one of TDB and Arafax.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - Last post should read:

TSQ - You know damn well that the reason why I was willing to hammah you. You weren't making any logical sense and were lashing out at anoyne who voted for you (calling them "bad players" or "scum").

Now, I'm going back to do the biggest freaking PBPA ever. One on both WUFFLES and TSQ. Also, maybe one of TDB and Arafax.

[Wuffles_II]

'fax, just so you know, TSQ's last two attempts to appeal to emotion should NOT be taken at face value. You appear to be misinterpreting that as proof of his innocence.

I'm about halfway through my PBPA, and thus far I'm getting a town vibe from TSQ, and a scum vibe from Arafax.

Very interesting.

Unvote, Vote MOD

Votecount please, or we may be forced to lynch you.

[Wuffles_II]

Someone is really stupid, then.

Whats scummy is keeping your vote on someone over and above the time they satisfactorily defended themselves against the accusations.

That statement is only a general one, and has nothing to do with this game, in advance.

PBPA going up soon. Man, I have the attention span of a goldfish this week :p

[Wuffles_II]

Erg...arg...

Ok, seriously, the PBPA will be going up TONIGHT.

I keep getting distracted by shiny assignments and stuff.

[Wuffles_II]

1.

Pretty sure that warrants a

FOS: Elias the thief

are you lunas scumbuddy?

2.

Erm.

FOS: Anyone who doesn't have a sense of humor

Also, though, Luna, that was awfully defensive for one random vote on day one. Maybe my vote is good where I have it.

3.

unvote, vote Elias.

Ah, the fateful –1 to hammah vote placed on Elias. I think this was just a stupid play on TSQ’s behalf, and that it does not reflect his alignment. My view of this almost certainly will not change.

4.

think that much pressure on somebody is not deserved if you don't have a reason. And that quick and very apologetic unvote seems fishy too. What I'm saying is, maybe not so much the quick unvote, (I would probably have quickly unvoted if it really was true that I didn't realise he was one from a lynch) but more the apologetic excuse seems like a slight over-reaction. Anyway, it deserves a vote.

This makes no sense. You say that had you not realized he was 1 from lynch, you would have done the same thing I did, but you wouldn't have stated your reasons, which is all my 'overly apologetic unvote' was? Stated reasons. In fact, nowhere in my unvote did I do anything remotely apologetic. I just unvoted, and explained why. You then go ahead and place a vote on me for something 'you would have done yourself.'

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a

FOS: Ziliu[/b

Here, TSQ justifies his FOS of Ziliu for being a lurker.

5.

Lurking is more conducively discussed in terms of time between posts, not the number of pages. This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted. Your defense is noted, however.

Just to note here – Lurking is more suspicious later on in the game. I feel TSQ’s reasons here were kind of bad, this early in the game.

The next few posts are of TSQ eventually coming to the conclusion that Zilias HAD posted more than once, with a few prods from CDB and I.

6.

I will admit that what I did looked scummy, but that's because I wasn't aware of the vote count, and what I like to do day one is form wagons to gain information. I unvoted when I realized that he was one from lynch, which was not 'backpeddling' or 'over apologetic' as some seem to think, but was the right play.

I'll claim if you want, but like... It was really just a stupid mistake on my part.

I don’t think this is wrong at all. Stupid mistakes happen at 4AM. Incidentally, I’m posting this right now at 5AM, NZ time. So much stuff is going on right now.

7.

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.

MAFIA 101 FOR ELIAS BECAUSE HE'S AN IDIOT: Day one is random. In order to stimulate discussion, people form bandwagons, because they force reactions. That was the justification for joining the wagon. The same justification EVERY OTHER PERSON ON IT HAD. Sorry everyone, this may seem a bit defensive, but it really isn't. I'm just frustrated that this is the third time I've had to explain this.

signifigant pressure for what? you must have noticed at least that i had 3 votes on me already, and that's certainly enough to require a response from me. what was the point of another vote at all?

The tail end of this has been covered above. But additionally, ZOMGURSTUPID Have you not read the entire last page of the thread, which has been devoted to discussing the relative truth or untruth of my statement that I did not know I was putting you one from lynch?

Additionally, since I have already offered to claim if need be, your further attacking me is meaningless unless you're trying to get a concensus to overrule wuffles.

Those last two votes struck me as wrong, as they seem quite a bit more defensive from Elias then would be normal seeing as he is no longer under significant pressure, and the points he is raising have already been discussed. Am I right here, or am I way off?

Whilst overly abrasive, I felt that this reply as somewhat justified, in that too much emphasis was being placed on the –1 to hammah vote.

8.

Uh...Elias, I think I responded to your main point pretty well.

@ Wuffles. Conceded, sorry for misunderstanding.

@

First of all, yes, maybe I've been lurking, depends how you choose to define lurking. But if I've been lurking, many many more people in this game have been lurking.

But I do acknowledge that you have a point in your defense. I probably was a bit unclear, but what I was trying to convey was that it was not so much the unvote in itself which my scumdar pinged on, but more the tone of the post in which the unvote was contained. Call it a hunch.

Then you say that I just bandwagon restating others' opinions. Well, I have to say that I consider that better than very blatantly bandwagonning someone to lynch minus one without stating any reaons whatsoever.

I won't like a claim from you though. Not yet. Though I'm curious to hear what others think about thestatusquo.

While it's true that many others haven't been posting (

mod note: Can we get prods, please?

I find the kind of lurking where you post without saying much to be far more likely to be a sign of a good scum player.

And no, it's not better, because while mine was a mistake, yours was a very calculated move, which makes it more suspicious in my eyes.

TSQ’s first of many prods at Ziliu’s suspicious scummy lurkerish play.

9.

Uh, no, I'm still happy with my vote where it is

K.

Ahem, back to business. Well, with this TSQ stuff cleared up, lets put some pressure on the lurkers, eh?

Vote: Luna.

I'm actually happy with not voting at the moment. My biggest suspect is elias still, based off of his extremely defensive reactions.

I could be persuaded to go lurker hunting. But only for Ziliu.

I found this post quite suspicious – if you’re only willing to condemn one lurker, then it’s not “lurker hunting” its “Ziliu hunting” – a TSQ-sponsored sport, apparently.

10.

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

Continuing on the Ziliu Campaign.

11.

K. So. That's your only response after not posting anything since your overly defensive begining to day one, and saying you didn't see anything at all by page 4? Not good enough. Not good enough at all.

unvote, vote lunalovegood

This puts her at three. See, I learned my lesson.

TSQ changes to the Luna Lurker vote – as she is not saying anything nor making any opinions clear.

12, 13

luna is obv scum.

Yeah, you're scum.

:wtf: - TSQ has no basis for this other than that Luna hasn’t jumped into any arguments at this point.

14.

Hey, Ziliu. If you're going to mislead the town, I would suggest that you do it by NOT POSTING CONTENT THAT PROVES YOU WRONG IN YOUR OWN CASE. Kthx bye.

[what]made you change your mind?

Well, maybe THIS:
1)

That's your only response after not posting anything since (insert last post here.)

2)

saying you didn't see anything at all by page 4?

3) and that's her only response to being called out is a determined refusal to be productive.


So. Three responses, WITHIN your last post that tell you why I voted her, aside from lurker hunting. If you had ANY patience at all. you'd have noticed that I said a POST EARLIER that I was making up my case, and planning to post it after class.

I reiterate. Learn to read.

TSQ, at this point, jumps back on Ziliu. Not entirely unfounded, I must say.

15.

Ziliu, I never said I was sure you were scum at all. In fact, I never even voted you. Nice job with the improvement of the reading skills, though, because I didn't change my vote after norinel voted, but instead after luna refused to respond to the case against her. I did so with a plethora of reasons that you've already admitted I supplied, and a warning to others where she was in the lynch count. What exactly was scummy about it?

However:

Okay here you go a complete sentance happy? And

vote: TheStatusQuo

because you all said to make a decision and that is mine and i know this is going to get a ton of complaints but that is my opinion.

No mafia, already under suspicion would OMGUS as blatantly as she just did, so I am very inclined to believe in her noobness right now. So,

unvote

and we'll see what happens from here

Agreed, Luna is a noob.

16.

Your overiding problem that doesn't allow you to answer anything I said in my last post?


ALSO,

FOS: CDB

Thats a horrible plan...For town anyway.

TSQ calls out CDB on his stupid no lynch comment. Fair enough.

17, 18, 19

Yeah, but I'm town, and therefore not the best for today. Please outline, other than the -1 lynch, which has been extensively covered, what you find scummy about me? I can't defend myself against..."You know...He just feels scummy."

The 'accident' that you keep mentioning IS the defense. It was a day one wagon to put pressure, I didn't know how close to lynch she was.

Guys, this is distracting us. I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

The ZOMG post. Very, very bad. Wuffles vote j00 bad.

20.

<snip>
1. hypocrisy: Accusing me of bandwagonning when you do the same without giving reasons

-Ok, fair point. I didn't think of it that way. I'm still not scum, though.

2. Vote-hopping (from me to luna) and accusing people left and right, probably to get attention off yourself

Let me repeat this, because you still seem to be inable to read. I NEVER VOTED YOU. EVER. I FOSd YOU BUT I NEVER EVER VOTED YOU. Everyone has been pointing out what they find suspicious. That's how this game is played. I have shown why I thought Luna was scummy, and now I tend to think that she's 'too scummy to be scummy' So I'm not voting atm, waiting for something scummy to come up.

3. Desperately using non-arguments (I'm town, you should be focused on scum) to try to draw attention on oneself.

That is because up until now I had not heard any argument against me besides "HE PUT HIM ONE FROM LYNCH LOLz." So I was inclined to believe it was scum throwing out red herrings, and focusing on a moderately scummy thing I did accidentally to force a bad lynch. You just actually posted reasoning, which makes me inclined to believe you're not scum. Not sure about CDB though.

In general, I feel that you have very strongly played to get focus elsewhere without addressing the points made against you.

I have responded to every point made against me.

And instead rely on an aggressive attitude and tone in your post towards other players to ridicule to put everyone who's trying to say anything against you in a bad light. Which, IMHO, is not pro-town behaviour.

My style is a little bit abbrasive and rude. I find that this gets the most reaction out of people, and helps me judge scum the best. It is not by any means 'a non pro town' style. Like, there are some rediculous styles, Lordy in scum chat just basically shouts "I'M SCUM." over and over again, so I don't think you can accuse me based soley off my playstyle. It seems to me like it would be the same regardless of like...what role I have. :rolleyes:

It’s true, Ziliu. TSQ has never voted you.

21. CLAIM

I am a bog standard townie. I win with the town. Pretty vanilla guys. *shrug*

Okay, sure. No way of proving/disproving you till tonight, assuming we have a cop.

22.

@CDB. My claim is what my pm says I am. I'd be willing to be any other vanilla can confirm it.


@Wuffles. I already posted defenses, but people did not believe them. I got frustrated, and thats what came out.

@Everyone. Vote for me if you like, I'm town, but vanilla, so voting me might not be a terrible play, certainly better than lynching power, or even outing power. But mafia would be better. *shrug*

I don’t like the emo tones of this post – self-defeating posts are never the correct play as town.

23.

@ arafax:

In posts #9, #115, #118 TSQ says these "you're obvioulsy scum" type posts...What is that?...You're not claiming cop because you said it about multiple people...So, what is that all about?

Perhaps you should stop editing which posts of mine you use, and pay attention to 140, where I most def said this:

And wuffles, that's my response to the request. All my reasons typed out. (I like to say things like "she's scum obv." in order to get someone posting, not necessarily because I'm sure. I thought the jokng nature of that tone of voice was easy to pick out. I guess I was wrong.)

Yeah...So like why are you only paying attention to some of my posts in order to make me look more scummy then I am?

In post #11 you make a statement about Elias & Luna being scum buddies?...What the heck are you doing?

Yeah...Pretty easy to understand based off of the fact it was RANDOMVOTINGSTAGElolz and I was just throwing random suspicions or half suspicions out, just like everyone does.

In post #18 you call Luna on lurking...It's still the random stage and many have not even posted yet, but you're bringing out lurking already?.

Yeah, my post 18 was directed at norinel, and I think you'll find it makes much more sense not through your distorted context if you read her previous post. kthxbi

In post #48, did you then post that he wasn't lurking?...I'm confused.

Well, admitting you're confused is the first intellegent thing you've done in this thread, because that post was directed about ZILIU, and was in the middle of a drawn out discussion with CDB...Like...Do you just read through the thread and pick out things that look scummy out of context?

Post #85 you say that you'll go lurker hunting, but only for Zuilu...What's that all about?

Well like...This might be understandable, considering you've asked me this before. I say MIGHT because I already answered it in post 88

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

AND you hadn't ANSWERED ME IN A MANNER THAT SEEMED LIKE YOU AGREED WITH ME IN 89!!!!!!!

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

Sounds good enough for me.

Wuffles, whats with the "rawrs?"...You only use them sometimes, I see?

So now we get to the meet. You just completely made up a case against me. Like. Not any of it was even close to being relevant, and not only that, you said you found me suspicious for something you said you agreed with me on. Like...I don't see how what you just did could be pro-town behavior. A pro-town does not need to invent a case, ignoring contrary information in the thread like you just did. So it warrants a

vote: Arafax

Guys will probably jump on me for OMGUS voting, but I'm not. I'm not voting ziliu, wuffles or CDB, because they have at least attempted to use logic in pushing for my lynch, arafax did not.

Yeah, it really does seem like Arafax wants TSQ dead.

24.

No, it's not rediculous. When looking through a thread to build a case, you look at every single post a person makes, and see how it affects your case. At least that's what I do, wuffles. I'm not saying that he needs to post/read posts of mine which are referring to naked girls being pushed past my dorm room, but if he is going to call me out, he should at least read the posts that are directly contradicting what he's saying. Not doing so is skimming, and just attempting to make me look bad, which is not something town would do. If town was building a case and saw "Hmmm... I'm not really right about any of this" you would assume they would stop building the case. That's not what arafax did.

I can buy the confusion shtick up to a point. And that point is where he says he finds me suspicious for something he not only had a conversation with me about, but agreed with me about. That is uber scummy behavior, folks.

This post reeked of truth. No emo attempts to get the town on-side, just fact.

25.

I'm not sold pon wuffles, though you do bring up a good point. I think what Arafax did was pretty damn scummy.

QFT.

26.

That's just the point. Nice strawman falacy, though. No one said you should post non scummy posts. We're saying if there are posts that contradict you, you shouldn't post such a case.

QFT again.

27.

I think two things are rather interesting:

One, obviously I still think Arafax is the play, and two, has anyone noticed how luna has not posted at all since she stopped being in the center of attention?

Wuffles is interesting, I'm going to re-read all his posts tonight, and see if he doesn't strike me as scummier than arafax, but I doubt it because arafax is looking really scummy to me.

Restatement of intent. Fair enough.

28.

Also,

unvote, vote wuffles

that's the exact opposite of what you said before.

He's two from lynch guys, proceed with caution.

Right. Jump on the wuffle-wagon.

29.

Lowel, I posted a response to everyone who has raised points against me. Arafax, I think I very well showed why I thought they were scummy, and luna I didn't say she was scummy, I said she hadn't posted since the attention came off of her. Both these statements are true, and unscummy.

I voted wuffles based off of this post:

TSQ, one thing Arafax has done consistantly is post his reasons.

The fact that he places FAAAAR too much emphasis on your -1 to hammah vote right near the start is irrelevant.

But he just needs to realize that it would be beyond stupid, BEYOND retarded, hell, even beyond WIFOM for a mafioso to DELIBERATELY put anyone at -1 to lynch that early in the game.

It would not serve a mafioso any good at all to do so - just look at how much scrutiny TSQ has come under since he did that - He's now going to have to be absolutely on his game for the rest of Primate Mafia, alignment be damned.

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

rawr!

Which seems kind of strange considering that he was just asking people to hammer me based on the same things he's attacking here. I also found his post about "If he isn't the play we should go...x" To be scummy, especially considering it was on someone on the same wagon as he is. That isn't enough for the vote?

Yeah, he didn’t bother to note that I never advocated voting for him based upon his –1 to hammah vote on page 2…

30.

You know wuffles. You're right. I had thought you were on my wagon because of the -1 lynch thing, but going back and re-reading, I can't seem to find you post any reasons EVER. Just a vague agreement with channeldelibird, and a comment about my playstyle. That's it in the sense of reasons. Don't quite know how I missed that before, because they you were willing to have someone hammer me, and you hadn't even posted reasons to be voting me.

Bullshit. I voted you because you were going emo.

31.

I tend to agree with you norinel, unless we can assure scum, which I don't think we can, I am probably the best play for the town at this stage.

Again with the EMO. This is not how a townie would normally act – yet, often, TSQ’s posts make a great deal of sense. It’s like, he goes emo with the ZOMG post or the “wow, I AM the best play, kill me” posts, and then, when I call him out, he goes back to solid-seeming logical defences of other parts that I was suspicious of. It just makes my reactions toward TSQ far more suspicious.

32.

How the hell have I presented 0 effective defense? I have responded to every point brought against me.

As to 'having given up' It's true. I'm town, but just vanilla. I feel like it's the best play to kill me then risk outing a power role.

Sigh, TSQ, outing a power role is much less dangerous than myslynching a townie in a 12-player game…especially when 2 townies are already NK’ed/MK’ed.

Bad logic gets you killed.

33

Who exactly is more lurking than you, Elias? Everyone has posted at least 2 times since you have.

34.

Yes, you have been absent for several days, which is rather interesting because I have seen you post several times on starcraft mafia.

Also, at least luna is contributing to the conversation, which is more than you're doing.

AGAIN with the friggin lurker hunting.

Well, at least he’s consistant.

35.

No, I'm not stretching. Lets look at the timetable here:

1) I point out we might need to prod you.

2) You immediately post for the first time in days, almost immediately after being called out, saying that you haven't had time to play much mafia, and that somehow explains your abscense from the game, which it would, it it were true, and in the meantime call my motives into question by stating there are 'people lurking much worse than you' This all seems a bit overdefensive seeing as I never used the word lurker, but rather enquired if we ought to prod you.

3) I politely enquire who has been lurking more than you, considering everyone has posted way more than you recently.

4) You respond by trying to shift the blame to luna, who admittedly, could be scum, but I think it's more likely a distancing technique, and saying that well...She's not posting content. This is inconsistant with your earlier claim that a) there are MANY of "them", and b) That "they" are lurking.

5)I point out that it isn't true that you have no time for mafia, because you've been posting in other threads, thus proving your claim a lie. I also point out that everyone else has posted at least 2-3x as much as you have recently, thus proving your claim of worse lurkers to also be false.

6) You respond by questioning my motives in looking at other threads

(for future reference, I didn't, I can see when you are the last person to post in a given section, lets say little italy for one, I go in, to check to see if someone has posted in this game, notices you haven't, but have instead posted in the thread right above it. but ALSO, people frequently check out other players games, both previous and current, in order to get a better read on them. It's called meta gaming.)

instead of responding to the fact that your two earlier claims have been proven wrong, and you responded to a thead that you hadn't responded to in days after a period of about an hour after being mentioned, proving you have been checking the thread frequently.


So heres the list of scummy things you just did (aka just read this part if you want to know the condensed reason for my vote, see above for more in depth stuff.)

- Overdefensive reaction to being mentioned as needing a prod.
- Proved that you have been watching the thread carefully enough to be able to post an hour after being mentioned.
- Shifting the blame, (wrongly) to luna.
- Were proved lying about 'the many people' 'lurking' which turned out to be luna posting more than you.
- Were proved wrong about not having any time for mafia.
- Instead of responding to all that, you question my metagaming in an attempt to once again shift the blame off of you and on to me.


And that was in the sequence of a few posts. I think it more than warrants an

Unvote, Vote: Elias

Number of people TSQ hasn’t attacked – one fewer.

Now. Must sleep.

Someone else do me, fax, and CDB please. I’m so damn tired

Hope I've been detailed enough.

Finish: 5:20AM. Sleep time ^_^

[Wuffles_II]

HAHA, SARNATH'D j00!

Night all.

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah.

As I said, TSQ really has been all over the place, in terms of logical sense and in terms of attacking people.

That's why I keep changing my mind on him - because he's so damn hard to read.

Wow, I vote for Wuffles to be nominated in the Scummies for the longest post ever.

Well, I had to show that I was really working these last three pages, lawl

[Wuffles_II]

*likes cookies*

I was actually going to do a PBPA on myself, but then after getting halfway, it was basically just me reiterating how correct all my posts were. 8)

[Wuffles_II]

LYNCH ALL EMOS.

...How could this happen to me...
...I've made my mistakes...
...Got Nowhere to run...
*CUTS SELF*

Yeah, thats pretty much how I feel about attempts to appeal to emotions as a stay of execution.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - Nice PBPA, Spectrum.

I shudder at the mammoth task ahead of the person doing a PBPA on me.

In advance,

WUFFLES APOLOGISES FOR ALL THE RANDOM CRAP.

[Wuffles_II]

Wuffles waits anxiously for his PBPA...

[Wuffles_II]

Well, as I said, I WOULD do a pbpa on myself, but that kinda defies the point of it.

rawr!

[Wuffles_II]

A deadline?

I hope this doesn't translate to a "Wuffles-dead-line"

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah, Spoon, did you even READ our last pages - those two PBPAs alone should be enough to stave off the deadline-stick :p

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP: Oops, I mean "Primate", not Spoon. This is what I get for playing in the same game as a guy that changes his username every time he changes Mafia forums.

[Wuffles_II]

Well, here are the parts Spectrum mentions that could be miscontrued as me basing my suspicions of TSQ off the -1 hammah vote he made.

@ Thestatusquo: Dude, the fact that you couldn't read 1/3 of a page since primate's last vote count either makes you extremely stupid or extremely scummy, neither of which I find particularly endearing at this stage.

Not enough to take my sexy pressure vote off yet though, I'd like to see Elias' reactions to it. ^_^

But yeah, FoS: Thestatusquo

spectrum's reply:

Okay, I buy the confirmation vote point and the no explanation point since it's logical, but W is wrong to say that there was no reason to vote TSQ. CDB and other people have pointed out that putting someone at lynch -1 is probably scummy.

Yes, well, as I have CLEARLY stated SEVERAL times, I do not believe that TSQ's -1 to hammah vote is a good enough reason to be voting him.

The fact that other people have pointed it out means nothing to me if I don't believe their points to be the case, correct?

Congratulations sock-puppet, you've just alleviated the Wrath of Wuffles for the time being

See, now that post I can agree with. While I find TSQ's 1-off hammah vote to be potentially suspicious, I have to agree that he has been posting a whole heap of "read the thread, noob" or thoughts to that effect.

That sort of playing style really annoys me, and, since he hasn't replied to my previous request,

Unvote, Vote TSQ

Note: I say "Potentially". I mean this in the sense that it is possible that it is scummy. However, I did not, and never will, vote TSQ based upon that alone.

TSQ being EMO, sure.
TSQ being scum cuz he -1 to hammah'd Elias? No friggin way would any scum do that deliberately that early. It just placed suspicion on him for the entirety of the rest of the day.

31.

TSQ, I was NEVER voting you based on the -1 to hammah vote you placed.

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

spectrum's reply:

This is BS. W did vote him for playstyle, but he also said the -1 vote was scummy. Mentioned in my PBPA somewhere above.

So yeah, NO IT ISN'T BS.

[Wuffles_II]

About your first point, YOU think that the -1 vote isn't a reason. But that's irrelevant. CDB thinks that it is. That's CDB's reason for voting. So it's just wrong for you to say that CDB is scummy because he confirms a vote without a reason. He DID give a reason, it's just that you didn't agree with it. So you are misrepresenting CDB.

The reason why I was VOTING HIM was because I didn't think his reasons were valid. As I said, the reasons why I voted for him were because of his total unflinching belief that TSQ was scummy for -1 hammahing someone that early in the game.

It is not wrong to say that I believe CBD's reasoning behind his strong push for TSQ is false, therefore groundless. I really do not think it is that difficult to believe that no player would be stupid enough to do something like that on purpose.

I'm not going to repeat myself again; this is the third time I have explained it.

I saw CBD as having no logical grounds for voting TSQ; therefore I said he had no logical grounds for voting TSQ. I fail to see how that is in any way correct. He may believe that was a good enough reason - but I clearly do not. Thus, to me, HE HAD NO LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR HIS VOTE.

I am not misrepresenting anyone.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think you're scummy mainly because of the reasons for voting TSQ, it's your frequent change in attitude towards TSQ that ticks my scum radar.

Here's a summary w.r.t Wuffles/TSQ.

before point 6: you say TSQ made a stupid mistake

Okay, sure, thats true.

point 16: you say he's potentially scummy. Yes, you did say 'potential', but you also voted TSQ, which implies that you think he's scummy. Even if I buy your 'potential' thing, why did you vote for someone you don't think is scummy?

I voted TSQ there because his "read the thread, noob" comments were really annoying me. Not because of the damn -1 to hammah thing. I may have phrased it badly, but I feel I have almost unquestionably been clear about my thought to his -1 to hammah thing, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

point 18: you're undecided aobut TSQ.

point 20-24: you think TSQ is scummy.

point 26: you don't TSQ is scummy.

Yeah, I agree, the hardest part of this game for me has been to get a decent read upon TSQ. I knew that after placing he -1 hammah vote on him that a change of heart would look suspicious, but, hell, he unexpectedly defended himself well against the accusations. At that point, it would have been scummier if I had left my vote on him, I think.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - @ Lowell:

You bring up some interesting points. I will re-read to make sure you're not missing anything.

As fun as jumping on ANOTHER wagon without being SURE would be.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP 2: This chapter from my response to spectrum's post should be:

I saw CBD as having no logical grounds for voting TSQ; therefore I said he had no logical grounds for voting TSQ. I fail to see how this is in any way

IN

correct. He may believe that was a good enough reason - but I clearly do not. Thus, to me, HE HAD NO LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR HIS VOTE.

[Wuffles_II]

Wuffles posts come across "wierd"....I don't like how he's doing all of there PBPA's and not coming up with anything....It seems like he's saying a lot, but he really isn't IMO.

Vote - Wuffles

because he seems to post tons of times but doesn't give a solid opinion IMO.

My opinions are flexible, that is for sure. I attack people when they logically are being incoherent (like I saw CDB as) or when htey are being too emo (as I saw TSQ as).

All I can say further in defence of my flip-flop opinions toward TSQ is, he's playing a great game here, as I am unable to consistently get a read on him.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP:

TSQ being scum cuz he -1 to hammah'd Elias? No friggin way would any scum do that deliberately that early. It just placed suspicion on him for the entirety of the rest of the day.

I'll say this again: this argument is what WIFOM actually is, at least if TSQ were making it.

But the thing is, there is nothing to be gained for TSQ by doing something so stupid deliberately.

You could say he is doing this deliberately to make himself seem stupid, but there's no reason for that, either. Stupid mistakes are seen as such, and have no effect on the relative alignment of the player.

I just don't see what TSQ has to gain by deliberately putting Elias -1 from lynch. Thus, I think it is illogical for anyone to think that he is "scummy" for doing so.

I don't believe this to be WIFOM at all, because if TSQ deliberately did this, then:

1. If TSQ is town, he's just put a whole lot of totally unneeded pressure on himself. No freaking way would he do that deliberately.
2. If TSQ is scum, then he just made himself public enemy #1 by doing something so retarded.
3. Therefore, whether TSQ is scum OR town, it is not in TSQ's interest to deliberately make a play such as that.
4. Therefore, there is no logical reason why he would do it, unless he is not playing in his best interest.

WIFOM logic can't be used here, because there just plainly is NO reason why anyone would do what TSQ did there deliberately. It is not a case of "No scum is stupid enough to do that deliberately" becuase, frankly, no PLAYER is that stupid. It reflects TSQ's intellect, not his alignment. Sorry to be beating on your brain capacity, TSQ, but I can't understand why people don't get this.

I fail to see how any of this is hard to understand. To me, voting someone because of this is just plain stupid bandwagonning. My logic here is NOT WIFOM, and I suggest you brush up on your game theory before mentioning that again. I'm really, really tired of repeating myself.

And Arafax, you'd better have some damn good evidence to show that I havent been saying anything of note, man. I think there is no way you can seriously make that claim.

At VERY least, there is no way you can justify voting me on these grounds - I feel I have contributed at least as much as any other player here, perhaps to the exception of spectrum, who's posts are always quite informative.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

Well, it's either that or

"You're a neutral with an alternate win condition involving you getting lynched"

[Wuffles_II]

This is my second game on 'scum, so I'm not entirely sure of anyone's game history (except Primate/Spoon/Pod).

Could someone help me out here? I'm assuming Luna is a noob like me, but how many of you other players are actually experienced 'scum players?

[Wuffles_II]

I agree, it is scummy.

However, you weren't talking about my "posting things without doing anything about it", you were talking about how "It seems like he's saying a lot, but he really isn't"

The very fact that I have been so flip-flop about TSQ shows, if anything, that I am OVERanalyzing. Every time I post about TSQ, a lack of content is not a factor.

I say again.

Attacking me because I "haven't posted content"...yeah, I don't see that working.

FOS Arafax

.

[Wuffles_II]

Well, thats not exactly true, I DID jump on TDB over his confirm vote.

But yeah, TSQ has been my primary target.

[Wuffles_II]

Ah...Brotherly love...

[Wuffles_II]

I think right now everyone is sort of waiting this dispute between Elias and TSQ out, to see who comes out on top.

also, can we get Ziliu, CDB and Luna prodded please? Luna and CDB havent posted for at least five days and Ziliu hasn't posted since the 24th of september.

Sigh, TSQ was right. Ziliu IS a serial lurker, lawl.

[Wuffles_II]

Wow...I didn't see THAT coming.

O.o.

But yeah, there've been a couple of times when I was like that in a game where my brother annoyed me into being tempted to quit.

But that exchange between the two of you did nothing to serve the town except to dry up conversation, and derail any potential bandwagons.

I too am tired of this.

Mod, can we have a deadline, please?

[Wuffles_II]

I second the welcome back TSQ....Glad you're back.

In other news, we have a deadline...

Mod

, may I ask what you will do at the end of the deadline if we have no lynch?...There are a few options, but I'm most likely expecting a no lynch for D1 if the deadline comes up....The fact that our Doc got mod killed really sucks and I think that we need to do our best to lynch scum today!

Mod, can we have a deadline, please?

Wuffles, this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro twon at all!

Asking for a deadline does NOTHING to affirm or deny my towniness, man, and just comes across to me as another attempt by you to incriminate me.

I am merely like every other member of this forum (except YOU, obviously) in that I just want this game to advance.

Try again, fax.

Upgrade FoS on 'fax to Vote: Arafax

[Wuffles_II]

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

This is what you are saying, right 'fax?

Allow my retort.

1. If a deadline is set, a half majority is required for a lynch.
2. It is highly unlikely that a half majority will not be reached by deadline.
3. Therefore, a lynch by deadline is highly likely.

I'd just like to point out at this point that a lynch at the end of a deadline merely requires a HALF majority.

That's THREE votes.

No FREAKING WAY will someone not be on three votes before the 16th october deadline.

If you're "experienced", arafax, then you would know this to be the case.

This simple logical argument counteracts your extremely weak claims against my requesting a deadline being scummy.

Vote stands, to say the least.

[Wuffles_II]

Lowell, there is just no way that there will not be a lynch if a deadline is set.

THREE VOTES, MAN. THREE.

How many people are at 2 votes right now.

Why do I sometimes feel like I'm talking to a brick wall in this game...sigh.

[Wuffles_II]

And my response was to the possibility that you suggested of me trying to hurt the town.

[Wuffles_II]

Wuffles - I think that a speed lynch or a no lynch is never good for the town...That's why I am suspicious of you for asking for a no lynch.

Lowell, please clarify or restate what you said about the no lynch/Elias/Wuffles...I'm confused.

WHAT THE HELL, ARAFAX.

I NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER MADE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING NO LYNCH BEING BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN.

The only thing even CLOSE to what you are totally unjustifiably quoting me for is me trying to understand what YOU are saying about a deadline.

Here is the logic behind your reason for "being suspicious" of me.

Note - this is what I perceive to be your reasons for not wanting a deadline.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

This is just totally faulty logic though, as I have shown. Thus, you are being very scummy by continuing to place suspicion on me for this.

Vote still stands. I quite unsurreptitiously request every other town member take note of Arafax's continued illogical attacks on me.

[Wuffles_II]

Arafax, man.

Try reading over the thread before coming up with all of this bollocks, ok?

Spectrum's had her eye on you for a while, as have I, since you jumped on me and wouldn't get off when I unvoted TSQ.

A degree of suspicion was definitely in order - because what I did couldn't seem anything except scummy.

But you've tried...hmm, three different ways to put me under suspicion now?

1. Wuffles is scum cuz he

won't take a position up versus TSQ

- Fair enough.
2. Wuffles is scum because he

hasn't posted content

- Bollocks.
3. Wuffles is scum because he

wanted a deadline

- Bollocks.

Any sane townie would jump on you after you use totally untrue suppositions like 2 and 3 to cast suspicion upon someone - I would be more suspicious of Spectrum if, after that large PBPA and your recent actions, let you go without a nice rope around your neck.

Next time, you better have some DAMN SOLID logic behind going for me, because you're one step away from me solidly pushing for your lynch, man.

[Wuffles_II]

Note - this is what I perceive to be your reasons for not wanting a deadline.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

This is

still

a strawman. See post 401.

unvote: tsq, vote: Wuffles

, for ignoring logic while professing to use it.

This isn't to say that I don't think Arafax is scum, but the way Wuffles is going about it has gone from bad to worse, to the point where I'm willing to let tsq and Arafax off for it.

Norinel.

That was what I perceived Arafaxes reasons for not wanting a deadline to be, nothing more.

If that argument was put in any other form, then it would result in Arafax's " this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro town at all!” statement being much less…I guess “effective” is the word I’m looking for.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

What I am saying is that this is what Arafax has to be saying for his points about me to be at all logical, from his point of view. The fact that I absolutely disagree that No Lynch will eventuate from this deadline is irrelevant. I was putting the strongest light on ‘faxes suppositions specifically to AVOID a strawman.

A Straw man fallacy is when you are misquoting someone’s arguments or deliberately not placing them in the strongest possible light in order to make their arguments seem weaker or less logical.

I hope you now understand EXACTLY what I was trying to do – put Arafax’s unspecified suppositions in a more concrete form so that I could better refute them.

Seriously, Nel, this is logic 111 here. No way is my argument a strawman fallacy.

I apologise in advance to everyone who reads this post and goes…”huhhh?” but I assure you, it makes logical sense, unlike what Norinel is trying to imply, for reasons I am unsure of.

[Wuffles_II]

Lowell, support your positions, please. Don't make suppositions without providing proof, it makes it harder for me to defend against them. -_-"

1. Norinel is wrong for accusing me of a fallacy I have gone out of my way to avoid committing.

2. Arafax is wrong for being suspicious of me for wanting the game to move on.

3. Arafax is DEFINITELY wrong for accusing me of "posting a lot but not saying much". If anything, I have said too much of what I think. And I think too much. Just look at my posts toward TSQ. -_-"

So, right now, I am awaiting replies to the following:

1. My post referring to the strawman fallacy.
2. Lowell, to show where I have been accusing others for specious reasons.

[Wuffles_II]

A Straw man fallacy is when you are misquoting someone’s arguments or deliberately not placing them in the strongest possible light in order to make their arguments seem weaker or less logical.

I hope you now understand EXACTLY what I was trying to do – put Arafax’s unspecified suppositions in a more concrete form so that I could better refute them.

And you're specifying them in a way that directly contradicts something that he actually said to make it into an arguments that's logically flawed ("Weaker or less logical", as you put it). Here's what Arafax has actually said about a deadline being suspicious:

Arafax ends post 393 with:

Mod, can we have a deadline, please?

Wuffles, this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro twon at all!

This was vague, I'll admit. Wuffles says in 397 that requesting a deadline is neither inherently pro-town or anti-town. In post 398, Arafax clarifies his position: (Emphasis mine)

Sometimes

a deadline without a lynch equals a no lynch...A no lynch is never a pro town move...You asking for a deadline makes me find you scummy...Not trying again, you're doing it well yourself to become more scummy to me.

Dictionary.com defines "sometimes" as "on some occasions; at times; now and then." In other words, not at all occasions. In post 400, Wuffles somehow gets from this to "If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch." as a key part of Arafax's argument, and the only conclusion as "There will be No Lynch".

In post 413, after a bit more discussion, Arafax adds:

Wuffles - I think that a speed lynch or a no lynch is never good for the town...That's why I am suspicious of you for asking for a no lynch.

And then corrects a typo/slip a few posts later:

My apology...This is a typo...I meant "deadline" not "no lynch" - That's what my argument was and still is.

In post 426, he clarifies further, and adds some new points (Which Wuffles' argument also doesn't address):

3. I think wanting a deadline is not a protown thing to do, and I assumed everyone would know why a deadline isn't protown...Mostly, it could lead to a no lynch. Plus, it shortens the day, shortens the discussion, puts pressure on the town, and could also lead to a lynch without a claim. Anyone who asks for a deadline will be suspicious to me...I think this is both a reasonable and common opinion, and not bollocks.

I don't agree that a no lynch is never a pro town move. On Day 1, it almost certainly isn't, but there are situations where it's the best thing to do, and there are situations where it's better than other options. That's a blanket statement I disagree with, but Wuffles has invented a blanket statement in his argument that I don't think anyone in this game agrees with ("If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch"), and demonstrates how an argument based on that false premise is false. That's a strawman. You're not going out of your way to avoid a fallacy, you're going out of your way (Maybe possibly unintentionally, but I doubt it) to commit it.

Also, Wuffles, please tell me what's wrong with my characterization of Arafax's point regarding deadlines and no lynch from post 401:

1. Sometimes, if a deadline is set, there will be no lynch.
2. No lynch is bad for the town.
3. Therefore, setting a deadline can hurt the town.
4. Wuffles is asking to set a deadline.
5. Therefore, Wuffles might be trying to hurt the town.

I'm going to have to repeat myself again, I see.

I don't see the possibility of a no lynch at even 1% right now, with this many people already at 2 (or three !!) votes already.

That is why I am fervently denying that my wish for a deadline was for any reason other than to MOVE THE GAME ON.

Here is the way I perceive your attempts to clarify fax's argument. Note well that I fully believe anyone who goes for this argument is resting their propositions upon a flawed base - that is, that there is a possibility worth considering that a deadline today will result in a no lynch.

Even a freaking muppet could see that, with this many people this close to lynch (assuming a deadline is in place, three votes is all thats needed) the chance of everyone suddenly going "SCREW THIS I CANT DECIDE" is infinitessimal.

1. Sometimes, if a deadline is set, there is a very small chance that there will be no lynch.
2. No lynch is bad for the town. (no disagreements here)
3. Therefore, setting a deadline has a very small chance of hurting the town.
4. Wuffles is asking to set a deadline. (True, obviously)
5. Therefore, there is a very small chance Wuffles might be trying to hurt the town.

This is how I would phrase Arafax's claims, were I in his shoes and attempting to tell the truth about Wuffles' deadline comments. Of course, this also shows that if I were Arafax, I would not be placing suspicion on wuffles because of this.

I stand by my claim that for Arafax to remain suspicious of me based upon my deadline request, his opinions would have to AT VERY, VERY LEAST be:

1. If a deadline is set, there is a decent chance of a no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set
3. Therefore, there is a decent chance of a no lynch.

I just see premise one to be totally false. There is not a good chance of no lynch at all.

I just don't see how Arafax can be suspicious of me because of this, or the other reason he provided relating to my content. I still say that his suspicion of me based upon my TSQ opinions is somewhat justified, but also that it is not something that he should continue to pursue when I am making this much of an attempt to make my opinions clear.

If anyone here sees good reason to believe that there is a better chance of no lynch than I thought, please, make your thoughts clear.

Come on, guys, once more, I just don't see how this is......at all hard to understand...

Perhaps I am just a legend in my own mind, norinel, but that really seems to me to simply be the correct way of looking at my actions regarding a deadline.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

Arafax, I admit that you are most definitely interesting - but I hate people who try to lynch me a lot. - PS: I AM Joking.

and no, it's not because you are finding me scummy that I am going after you. It is because you are finding me scummy for what I believe to be bd reasons. I will throw down with you, Norinel (a decidedly more experienced player), Lowell or TSQ if needs be to attempt to prove myself.

^_^

[Wuffles_II]

Okay I read over what I missed which took me like an hour but here is what I've come up with.

1. I know this has passed but the whole TSQ and Elias being brothers thing should have nothing to do with this game.

2. Wuffles keeps changing his mind over issues and it's pissing me off so I'm going to have to

vote: Wuffles

.

3. I think a deadline is a good idea because this first day has been going on for almost twenty pages now and people are getting bored. If we lynch a townie, at least we'll know a lot more about everyone's playing styles. Also we have the chance of actually lynching the mafia. We can afford a mislynch right now because we have enough townies.

4. I really wish i had someone that I knew to play mafia with .

Luna, I think everything you've said in this post has "passed".

Also, I have been making a conscious effort in the last few pages to be consistant, as my slightly zealous posts recently have described.

Please, do try to post content, rather than just regurgitate other people's comments - only 'fax appears to still hold me to blame for the wishy-washyness over TSQ. Hell, even now, I am still undecided on where his allegiance lies. While I acknowledge that this WAS scummy on my part, I think that this does not in itself acknowledge a vote.

It's probably good that you don't have anyone you know in this game - the temptation to talk to them about stuff you really shouldn't is really tempting. I would know. I have been tempted by that in the past.

I THINK I am at 4 votes. Lowell's vote on me without anything to back up his claim of my "leading" the town is very suspicious also.

Lowell, Norinel, Arafax and now, Luna.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - CDB has not yet discovered where he stands. He's been active since tuesday. I hate people that claim to be "busy" and are still able to post on every other thread they're involved in.

God.

[Wuffles_II]

Ah, I mean...Claim to be "lax"...tee hee.

[Wuffles_II]

Er, Primate, Lowell is still voting for me.

Ah, wait a sec, he didn't unvote, right?

[Wuffles_II]

Well, all I'm saying is, luna, is that you're basing your accusations upon a series of conversations that I think I have explained well enough. I just don't think your vote is justified.

And Lowell, nice work on avoiding my polite request for clarification. What the HELL do you mean by

"accuses others for specious reasons."

[Wuffles_II]

My god.

I cannot believe you guys didn't at very least lynch Arafax after that day, honestly.

And TSQ, frankly, I am disgusted with your play. You ruined any chance the town had to win on day 2.