Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[ting =)]

Hallo. Reading thread now,

unvote

just in case.

[ting =)]

Okay, I was going to post once I've finished reading everything, but I'm only at page 16 right now, and deadline is coming, so I figured I should try and at least get some thoughts out. Working on the other 9 pages now.

People I'd be willing to vote for by page 16: SC, FL, BA.

----

Okay, I'm typing this as I read through, and I'm inserting things here and there when relevant, so this might be rather messy. Oh, and you can ignore questions if you've answered them already at some later time.

I don't like rofl's 'trap.' It's something that again anyone could walk into, whether they're town or scum, for reasons that could be either town-ish or scummy. I also don't like the way rofl reacted to Korts. I would have done the same thing as Korts. His question wasn't valid for exactly the reason armlx said in 51.

Oh, he's mason. Geez. I don't agree with your logic on armlx, or your insistence on korts being his partner based on the fact that he disagreed with you on it. Also don't think you should have claimed. You've helped the town, yes, but just as much as you've helped the scum.

I'm not ready to vote you yet, but should a wagon appear on you, I will sure as hell join it.

First thing that seriously set off alarm bells in my head.

Rofl apparently doesn't like it either, but still goes for armlx. Ugh. I really hope I don't have to read 20 pages of tunneling.

vote:forbidden light i agree with the others points

I

really

don't like this. Especially since I have a meta on townvamp that he doesn't like to vote, even when there's big cases.

Huh? Why'd you claim FL? You were so far a way from a lynch. Why so iffy?

Don't like Ironman's post 160. Kind of hypocritical to accuse both FL and vamp of being opportunistic when his post is pretty much just as opportunistic.

Ugh. Sun Tzu's 170 is just as bad. Korts calls out Sun Tzu on it. I agree with you Korts, but why did you call ST on it when Ironman's 160 was essentially the same?

I do however feel if a wagon did form on you, someone would point out what my intuition was going off on, so I'd feel better about voting you

Huh? So you're fine with voting based on no justification other than your intuition, and then having your vote justified later by

other people?

GS coming under suspicion for his unwillingess to answer questions. Could you maybe see it as just him being slightly pricky? His later actions to iamusername like

vote: iamausername for being too stupid to be a townie.

read more like prickiness than scuminess.

I don't like Lowell's, 'I'll tell you who's scum once I get more protown vibes.' That's not scumhunting. That's a cheap out so you don't have to attack people and make a case on them.

Korts was fishing? It read more like an obsevation. He didn't do anything that would have prompted people to out themselves in response, consciously or otherwise.

Hmm. I don't think the Korts-rolefishing thing was a big deal. It looked more like an observation at first glance. I have to crane my head to the side a bit and squint to get the malicious rolefishing point of view some people were pointing out.

I prefer a Vamp lynch, since it is obvious we aren't going to get any insightful play from him,

as well as

the fact he's been playing scummy.

? The fact that he's been playing scummy is just an afterthought to you? Also, I disagree with any philosophy along the lines of, 'player x is useless to town, let's lynch him!' There will always be antitown people in every town. Lynching them in every game

just because

is just as antitown.

But, it's not JUST a policy lynch. Can you say with full honestly Vamp hasn't been scummy? The policy is a factor, but to be honest his play has just been really scummy. That's the main reason I support it.

Contradicts above.

Armlx grows a serious-er wagon this time, with korts on it. Don't buy it. The reasons Korts gave in his pbpa of armlx aren't as solid as the reasons he had for his earlier votes. The armlx case is weak. It honestly reads more like an omgus. I think you're both town though, have since the beginning.

SC goes to armlx following korts, right after he had switched his vote to blackadder following roflcopter. This is like the most blatant wagoning ever. You've gone along with anyone who's posted a serious case on anyone. Ugh.

Wow. Semantics argument between korts and armlx over the word 'only' spanning 10ish posts. I think the whole, 'no,

you're

misrepresenting me' thing was made out to be bigger than it was.

Korts is called on his case being weak by jordan but sticks to his guns. Hm.

Man.

I can't read fl's 303. Everything's just strung together.

Hmm. Strife makes a good point about Korts being protown early on as having a clouding effect on later actions. I'll reread him in isolation once I'm done plowing through 29 pages.

Hmm. A lot of people seem to like fl's 303. I'll go have another look at it.

Lowell is still doing his town vibe thing at page 13. Does anyone have a meta on lowell? It's irking me. I think I have to reread his posts in isolation later too.

Hmm. I don't like how blakadder answered for tin. He cites his reason as being

It's not that I'm supporting Tin or anything,

I just don't like false accusations.

Despite the fact that there were lots of other accusations flying around at that time. Why defend that accusation in particular? His defence of it is,

I don't know. I speak (or, rather, post) without thinking a lot.

which I also don't like. That's a cheap out.

Korts is still going after armlx after admitting it's a weak case. Why dude? Do you trust your gut that much?

I'm at post... 354. I just noticed that fl does a lot of FOSing. Maybe it's a playstle thing, but I hardly ever FOS, and I don't like FOSs. I'm rather wary of FOSers.

So far, I haven't found anyone doing anything that I would find clearly scummy (especially if there is a reasonable explanation for StrangerCougs FoS).

Anyway, I don't know if it is even possible to obtain a better-than-random lynch D1.

Therefore, at this point,

I would go for forbiddanlight who is a claimed vanilla.

Another candidates are BlakAdder who wants to rely on unexplained intuition and Vamparific who seems to have disappeared.

Urgh. Uber do not like. Especially the bold. The whole thing reads like, 'let's just lynch

someone.

' The italicized is also horrible.

Post 361. Ironman makes a lot of posts along the lines of:

this game moves extremely quickly. I'm still trying to catch up and form an intelligent analysis. I've kinda skimmed over the last few pages, but I currently have nothing to comment on as of yet. Maybe later.

I need to skim through a game of his and see if that's standard from him or lurky.

371. I lol'd. Also, just realized that I should have been putting post numbers since the beginning of this read, just to make things easier for people to find what I'm talking about. Also, just realized that if I were in the others' shoes, I'd probably only just be skimming through this.

386, SC. Huh? That was a rather quick vote/unvote for very little in both the vote and the unvote.

--

People who've struck me as lurky and i'm wary of: sun tzu, ironman, tin. If I missed anyone, then they haven't been posting enough for me to even catch their names.

[ting =)]

I just stated that might be what I would do if I had to decide now, as I haven't been convinced about anyone to be likely to be scum.

I don't like that you haven't had a firm stance on anyone all day. Your pushing for fl just because she claimed vanilla, and for vamp saying he's a better lynch without giving any reasons also rub me the wrong way.

420/421: I don't like either. 420 is wagonning post that's just long enough so it looks like you're contributing something new to the case. The reason behind 421 is just.. meh.

424,Sun Tzu: Huh? You were being voted for active lurking, and all you post is

I'mnot making any jokes this game.

428: Strife is very happy with his Korts vote. You seem really convinced of his scuminess, since you've posted, 'happy with korts vote' quite a bit already. Could you point me to the post where you made a case on him? I haven't seen anything that would make me as confident in a Korts vote as you are.

441: Rofl, you're near-completely-confirmed-town, not god. Stop trying to use your confirmedness as grounds for pushing your cases. That they're coming from a pro-town person doesn't make them right.

WHOA. SC claims vig. Huh. That's... a convenient claim. Whether you're the vig, sk or mafia, you can 'confirm' your 'vigness' by killing someone of our choice. Hm. Of course if you're lying, the vig will just kill you anyway.

Oh. Armlx and Korts say this is just standard Lowell. If they're both agreeing on this..

525: SC, don't, you know, vig me. GS' joke does not sound funny to me, but it

is

a joke.

530: WTF? I don't know if this is genuine or a newbie card overkill.

I analyzed you. I didn't get proof. I'm still convinced you're scum. What to do but vote you?

No.

Hm. I don't get all the suspicion on Muerrto based on his, 'vig the masons!' plan. He's pointing out that everyone's just giving rofl a free pass, something which would be awesomeness for scum. The obvious wifomness of rofl's claim hurts my head, but not enough that I'm not going to take it at face value for now. I don't agree with his plan of vigging the masons, but I can see where he's coming from.

Can you list his actions? I thought he was scummy because he HAD NO actions. That doesn't quite apply to me.

Lack of actions is just as bad scummy actions. It's lurky. Also, the whole him casting a vote thing, and him not doing anything to try and clear his name from suspicion.

I just realized that I've been mostly just looking at vamp through the corner of my eye because of all the louder people.

There is no reason scum would claim masons here Muerrto, especially right into a potential 2 for 1 counter claim.

And it's

exactly

for this reason that if I were scum, I'd claim mason. The sheer, 'but scum wouldn't do that!'ness of it.. Not calling rofl scum btw. I just disagree with the FOSs on Mue. The things Mue said on this(minus the vigging plan) are things that have gone through my head at some point, and I know I'm town, so if his thought processes are the same.. I still don't like vamp though.

Fonz and Armlx start going for GS. The whole, 'iamusername never said..' 'gs never said..' is a semantics argument much like when armlx and korts got heated up over the whole, 'only' thing.

--

Whew. Done. I think GS was being stubborn, not scum, and I think the arguments on him are nitpicking.

[ting =)]

@sc.
I object, because of stuff I already said.

You obviously don't have to listen to me, but since you asked, I'd vig either of sun tzu/tin.

@armlx.
Sorry, it was Fonz and Korts who were going for GS, not you and Fonz.

There is more than semantics to the GS case. He implied there was a case on one but not the other, and yet said that there was nothing to choose between them. Fairly substantial contradiction imho.

I think it's pretty clear that early on he meant that there wasn't anything yet that made him suspicious of either of Armlx/Strife, something which a bunch of other people also said. From his 10th post,

When the question was asked in post 17 there was hardly any content so I didn't have an opinion at the time.

On the: 'implied there was a case on one but not the other, yet said that there was nothing to choose between them'

At the time there were some attacks towards armix and none towards strife and that is why I said there was no case against strife, not because the case building against armix was good. How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

The question didn't ask if I had a case against either one of them. It asked me which one I thought was scummier which translates into, "Based on the cases already shown in this game, which of these two players do you find scummier?".

Where I think he clearly meant, 'I wasn't going to choose, because there was still nothing to compare.' - something which is a rather direct follow up of his earlier post.

[ting =)]

Hm.

SC, did you target Lowell?

[ting =)]

@korts.
It should be:
'SC,

why

did you target Lowell?'

I ask because he wouldn't have been my top choice for vigging.

@fonz.

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

[ting =)]

Oh, I just browsed through SC's posts. He had his vote on Lowell. nvm the question.

[ting =)]

I need to reread certain people, I'll post when I'm done.

I honestly don't think mue is scum.

[ting =)]

He did. See my last, last post.

What are you trying to do Fonz?

[ting =)]

You know that wasn't my question.

Post 794. I pointed out before that that GS

did

justify his switch. You either didn't read or you're deliberately lying to push the GS case. What are you trying to do?

[ting =)]

post 794 was made by me.

Yes. I didn't mention it to say it was mine, I mentioned it because I don't like it. It's vague, misses my question, and it's eading in that implies that I'm not scumhunting.

Incidentally, just because you say this is merely semantics, does not make it so. Greasy claimed that IAAUN was repeatedly misrepresenting him, but was not able to provide a single example.

They interpreted each others words differently. I call it semantics because I don't think either of them misrepresented the other, I think they misunderstood each other. This was my impression as I read through, and I'm fairly sure I can find stuff to quote if you want me to.

Again,

the manner in which he dropped his vote does not indicate stubbornness to me.

After all, don't stubborn people tend to stick to their arguments through hell and high water?

Please.

He continually voted IAU, and he did that for nearly most of the first day. He made it very clear IAU was his first choice, and everyone made it clear that IAU was not going to get lynched. So, he did the logical thing and compromised. Lynching doesn't involve bullheadedly going for your first choice, it's about coming to a consensus with the rest of the town.

So... if he had kept on tunneling IAU, you would have believed he was town? You're suspicious of him because he didn't tunnel? I think he was stubborn, yes, but not stupid.

[ting =)]

How does this include any explanation of the dropping of the vote on someone he's voted five times? The constant revoting indicates a strong belief IAAUN is scum. That he switches to someone else without even feeling the need to justify moving off the person he's been hounding for most of the day indicates that the attacks on IAAUN were not genuine.

I've seen plenty of occasions where someone's been convinced of another player's scumminess- where it's come from a town player, I've never seen the poster in question not at least try to explain why they have dropped the suspicion they held with such certainty.
So, it's plain for all to see that you NEVER pointed out that Greasy Spot justified his actions, it's also the case that he did, in fact, only give reasons for switching off IAAUN after I specifically pressed him on the matter. So who's the liar again?

I have below the post in which he unvoted IAAUN. Care to point out the reasoning he gives for switching from Iam?

Sure!

[snip because not relevant to this discussion]

@fonz.

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

This is why I didn't like 794. You either missed this, or you're deliberately lying about the, 'gs never gave reasons for unvoting.'

[ting =)]

ebwop(800):

I mentioned it because I don't like it. It's vague, misses my question, and it's eading in that implies that I'm not scumhunting.

This was talking about 797, not 794.

[ting =)]

You deliberately answered a different question to the one I asked. Where, in the unvote post, did he give his reasons? The answer is nowhere.

o.O You said that he never gave reasons, waaaay in day 1, even

after

he had. I pointed that out - by quoting his reasons.

And now, your argument is... me giving you his reasons don't matter because you wanted him to give it on a particular post of your choosing? Really?

Your attack on him since day 1, and I can quote you - is that he didn't give his reasons. The issue wasn't when, the issue was that he hadn't. I showed you he did. Don't twist this. I can quote your posts and include date stamps of everything if you want me to.

----

Later, when I pressed him on the apparent absurdity of dropping a vote he'd confirmed four times without even acknowledging that he was doing so, he then gave the weak, cop-out type explanation that no-one else really seemed to be buying his case- even though, iirc, IAAUN was copping significant heat from several people (for his suggestion of vigging GS), armlx I think only had rofl on him when GS switched (so wasn't really any more viable) and the single biggest wagon had just died due to its object claiming vig.

Sure, because one vote, and 'some heat' are obviously going to get a guy lynched when there's already a halfway full wagon on someone else.

The point of mafia is to try and lynch scum. There was no way IAU was going to get lynched that day. He was never the biggest target, and reading through, there was no way a wagon on him would have ever outgrown a wagon on anyone else.

------

Furthermore, all he said of the person he was moving to was that 'this was standard scum behaviour for him' without any explanation at all.

This is true, yes. I agree that this would go against him/me. I don't know what he saw because I've never played a game with armlx, I don't have a meta on him. I won't begrudge you if you hold this against me.

-----

Do I find it scummy to not tunnel?

I find it scummy not to tunnel when you're convinced you've found scum, and Greasy's posts prior to the unvote appear to represent himself as convinced that IAAUN was scum. In which case, I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.

In fact, Greasy even SAID that is what he was going to do:

So, yeah, hypocrite much?

Can you

honestly

tell me that everyone in this game so far has gone for their first choice in lynching blakadder? Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I can remember others also making compromises. I think greasy was stubborn, yes, and I think that yes, he changed his vote when he said he wouldn't. I don't think he was stupid. He did everything he could to lynch IAU, even repeated himself here and there. No dice.

Again, mafia is about the town coming to a consensus in order to lynch scum. That often entails that certain members of the town have to make compromises and go for someone else if no one wants to lynch their first choice.

We both know this happens in nearly every game, and we both know that saying townies don't make compromises is a lie.

I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.

It'd be a very stupid townie who'd tunnel someone who obviously isn't going to get lynched.

[ting =)]

Man.. I sense that we'll generate at least 2 pages of walls of text.

Rereading GS' and your posts now.

[ting =)]

This might be too long for one sitting.

--

You said that he never gave reasons

, waaaay in day 1, even after he had. I pointed that out - by quoting his reasons.

That's an outright lie. I never said that.

Alright, I checked.

I really thought the manner in which GS pushed IAAUN before

dropping it with no explanation

looked like distancing.

You

did

say that he never gave reasons for why he dropped his vote - even after he had. I remembered the timing wrong though. It happened right after day 1, not at the very end of day 1 like I recalled.

This stuck in my mind because reading GS' posts was the first thing I did on replacing in, and this just hit a nerve.

---

The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?

This is my first Greasy vote. As you see, I vote him for 'unvoting without giving reasons' here.

Yes, and, I already said that I don't understand the reason behind his armlx vote either. I can't blame you for voting him for that.

I do however, understand his motivation for switching. He's been calling for an IAU lynch since early day 1. His switch happened two weeks after. He would have had to had been really dense to not pick up by then that IAU was not going to get lynched.

----

Though I do think there's a not small likelihood that GS was deliberately distancing from a buddy, considering how strongly he represented his suspicions,

and how

quickly

he ditched them.

vote: iamausername

I will vote: armix. This is standard armix scum play.

...I'm sorry, quickly, how? He switched his vote nearly

two weeks

after.

I said

he dropped the IAAUN thing

without explaining why.

I did not say

he

NEVER offered an explanation

- after all, it was ME who demanded one, so it's fairly obvious i saw it, even though it's a terribly weak one.

I'm really not getting this. How are the bolded bits different?

He dropped it without explaining why- he dropped it, and did not offer an explanation as to why he was dropping it AT THE TIME HE WAS DROPPING IT.

Note, that he's not the only player in this game, or in mafiascum, who are very vague with regards to their actions.

I don't think it's a

good

thing, and I would give my reasons if I ever vote/unvote, but I do think that you can't accuse him of it without accusing the others who've done it.

---

No, the reason is that you are lying and misrepresenting both me and your predecessor. I said he unvoted without giving reasons. This is true.

That he later gave reasons does not entirely alleviate the suspicion caused.

It was the manner in which he dropped his case on IAAUN entirely, without even feeling a need to explain the sudden reversal, which made me feel those suspicions were not genuine.

See first section. And where have I misrepresented GS?

First off, he did not drop his IAU case entirely.

How can you read any of the exchanges between me and iamausername and say my vote wasn't warranted based on his behavior.

I'm not gonna reiterate the whole situation. Any post where he quoted me he misrepresented what I said or implied a different meaning to something I said or didn't say.

The case has been drug around enough, I'm not gonna rebuild it if your too lazy to review for yourself.

Second, the reversal was, again, not sudden. It came

two weeks

after.

I agree with this one. I would not vote/unvote someone without saying why, and I would be suspicious if someone did this without giving reasons. Skimming through some of GS' games point to this being standard GS play though.

---

I did not say- I am suspicious of GS because he NEVER gave reasons for unvoting IAAUN. I am suspicious of him because he unvoted without giving any kind of reasoning.

Namely, that he dropped his suspicion way too easily given how strong he represented it as being.

He's was harping on and on about IAU from July 3 until July 16 - nearly two weeks. I would have stopped attacking someone way sooner than he had if it was clear that a wagon was clearly not going to build.

I'm not getting how these bits are different again. To clarify:

'never gave reasons for unvoting' and 'unvoted without giving any kind of reasoning'

What are you trying to say? I thought you must have typo'd/slipped the first time round, but you've said it twice now, so you must be trying to say something. I'm getting that this is integral to your point, so could you clarify for me?

--

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD, you would know that the halfway full wagon had just collapsed because its target claimed vig, and that there was no-one else on more than a couple votes. IAAUN was one of a handful of people that were being heavily criticised by a number of other players. Having been there at the time, I can assert that an Iam lynch was at least as likely as an armlx one at the time he switched.

I read the thread. You're missing my point.

My point, was that the largest the IAU wagon ever grew was just two votes - GS and rofl. On the other hand, there were other people who were attracting far more votes. The IAU wagon was never the largest wagon at any point in time. I maintain my point that I really don't think that IAU would have gotten lynched.

---

Also, if the existence of this 'halfway full' wagon made IAAUN unviable, how is armlx viable? armlx also only had one vote at the point where GS switched.

I don't understand the armlx vote either from the point of view of viability or how scummy he looked, and like I've said, I disagree, but understand any suspicion that comes my way from this. The post where I posted my thoughts as I went through the game show that I think armlx is town.

---

He said he would never unvote IAAUN. He did. He lied. What is your explanation of this?

Ugh. Nice strawman. Yes, he lied - IN ORDER TO MAKE A COMPROMISE.

The point of mafia is to try and lynch scum. There was no way IAU was going to get lynched that day. He was never the biggest target, and reading through, there was no way a wagon on him would have ever outgrown a wagon on anyone else.

Would you have rather he kept on voting IAU all throughout the game? Really? How is that optimal play? I get annoyed by people who don't want to switch their votes because of how 'convinced' they are. I don't agree with tunnel visioning. He chose not to tunnel.

I already gave my explanation why he unvoted IAU. You ignored it and chose to highlight instead on the fact that he previously said he wouldn't but did. Again, I think he was smart not to stick to the whole, 'not going to unvote IAU' thing.

---

It strikes me that, given the defence of GS you have presented, the person he moved to would have to be at least as close to IAAUN in scumminess, and more viable. The armlx switch does not really fulfill either criterion.

See the earlier parts of this post.

---

Oh, town makes compromises. All the time. But tunnelling town don't. I can show you numerous occasions where, as town, I 'locked on' a player like Greasy did, and I only ever shifted with deadline imminent.

The way GS represented himself, it seemed like he fervently believed IAAUN was mafia, and no other lynch was remotely as good.

I don't like people who tunnel. Obviously, this is a playstyle thing, but I think being unwilling to make compromises is not the best play in a game that obviously involves working with other people.

Yes. Like he said though, how was his vote accomplishing anything?

---

Your argument basically boils down to 'a rational townie would have unvoted there' but Greasy Spot couldn't be further from a rational townie, nor was he representing himself as such. He confirm voted four times, ffs. He promised to continue voting until one of them was dead.

Are you telling me it's perfectly normal to represent a suspicion like that, and then drop it without bothering to explain why?

What you've done, and this also applies to the last quote I quoted - is lump him in a pre-defined group, 'tunneling townies,' and then said that his actions don't match that of a tunneling townie.

I don't agree with lumping people into groups, simply because we're people. No one fits into rigid categories, and no one should be expected to behave in particular ways. I think he did the right thing not tunneling.

I'd like to point out that he never gave much reason for his earlier suspicion either.

Idiot, do you think people can never change there minds about something. Your clueless if you think that.

vote: iamausername for being too stupid to be a townie.

He had previous interaction with IAU before that, but this post sums up, pretty much all his reasons.

I would say it's just the way he is.

---

I do it all the time, so...

I'm sorry if you think I implied you're stupid. Tunnel visioning is just something that I don't think is good play for town. This is a team game.

[ting =)]

@fonz.
Okay, I want to check - your case on GS is:

1. He did not give reasons for his unvote

when

he unvoted, not that he didn't give an explanation, ever.
2. You expected him to tunnel vision IAU, but he didn't. You think that because he acted like 'tunneling townie' but didn't fit the profile, he must have been distancing.

Did I miss anything? Misrepresent anything? I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

---

Who, GS? I didn't think he had a post between those two to harp on with.

He had 6 posts total between the those two posts, all of them about IAU. Two of them were just fluff though.

[ting =)]

Sorry I haven't posted in a bit. Relatives came in and stuff.

Greasy suddenly dropping his constant vote on iamausername was quite odd, considering how hard he was pushing it. Even if it was a while since his last vote, he was pretty persistant. IF he and username were distancing though, that would pretty much clear the other if the other ended up dead. ting though hasn't been really suspicious though, but I am gonna FoS: ting =) also.

See stuff I said to Fonz.

Him dropping his vote wasn't odd because, like he said, there was no point leaving his vote on IAU. It accomplished nothing.

[ting =)]

@fonz.
Okay, I want to check - your case on GS is:

1. He did not give reasons for his unvote

when

he unvoted, not that he didn't give an explanation, ever.
2. You expected him to tunnel vision IAU, but he didn't. You think that because he acted like 'tunneling townie' but didn't fit the profile, he must have been distancing.

Did I miss anything? Misrepresent anything?

I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I'm kind of waiting for a reply to this question.

[ting =)]

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon was 100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

Again, GS had has vote on IAU for nearly two weeks, and the wagon hadn't gone anywhere. It was clearly going nowhere. Also, there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on the other people who were also viable lynch targets. I don't agree with GS's choice of armlx, like I already said.

You can argue that IAU would have been a possible lynch, but the fact that his vote count never even rose to half the needed amount kind of speaks for itself(I'm not going to check now, but it topped at two votes if I'm not mistaken).

The way in which you phrase the case feels misrepresentative to me, like your tone is overly dismissive, though nothing you actually say is untrue.

Did I miss anything?

(Did I) Misrepresent anything?

I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I wasn't trying to represent your case in any way, I was asking for a summary of your case, which is why I asked if what I thought was your case - was your case. I don't think my tone was dismissive, it was just me typing what I understood to be your case and asking you if that was it.

His claiming that he is being 'misrepresented' but refusing to say how, and insisting it is obvious and accusing me of being lazy and failing to look it up when I pressed him on it. If you're town, and you feel someone is misrepping you, it shouldn't be too hard to explain why. See, as a good example, me here.

Look up some of GS' games. I hate people who use meta defenses, and I don't like the fact that I'm having to pull one, but this is just how he is. I really can't say any more on this.

The dichotomy between the way he represented his suspicions, and

the ease with which he dropped them,

whilst not even acknowledging that he was doing so, without giving even half-decent reasoning on the person he was moving to.

His repeated confirm votes give the impression of someone who is absolutely convinced IAAUN is scum, to the extent that he's not willing to listen to anything else. See, in particular, his PROMISE that he would NEVER move his vote until one or other of them was dead.

Again,

He's been calling for an IAU lynch since early day 1. His switch happened two weeks after. He would have had to had been really dense to not pick up by then that IAU was not going to get lynched.

...

He's was harping on and on about IAU from July 3 until July 16 - nearly two weeks. I would have stopped attacking someone way sooner than he had if it was clear that a wagon was clearly not going to build.

Note, that he's not the only player in this game, or in mafiascum, who are very vague with regards to their actions.

...

I agree with this one. I would not vote/unvote someone without saying why, and I would be suspicious if someone did this without giving reasons. Skimming through some of GS' games point to this being standard GS play though.

Would you have rather he kept on voting IAU all throughout the game? Really? How is that optimal play? I get annoyed by people who don't want to switch their votes because of how 'convinced' they are. I don't agree with tunnel visioning. He chose not to tunnel.

I already gave my explanation why he unvoted IAU. You ignored it and chose to highlight instead on the fact that he previously said he wouldn't but did. Again, I think he was smart not to stick to the whole, 'not going to unvote IAU' thing.

...

I think being unwilling to make compromises is not the best play in a game that obviously involves working with other people.

--snip to prevent long post. continuing in next.--

[ting =)]

He then moves off, as if he'd never made that declaration, giving the impression of someone for whom IAAUN is just one of a handful of acceptable suspects. There's a clear contradiction there.

It suggests to me that his earlier 'IAAUN IAAUN IAAUN AND NO-ONE IS EVEN CLOSE' attitude was merely posturing, and not genuine. If you say you will not move off a person ever, and then go back on it, it indicates you didn't mean it in the first place.

No... it gives the impression of someone who's realized that there's no point in what he's doing.

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

See earlier posts about compromising. Would you feel better about him if he'd kept tunneling IAU? Again, how would him leaving his vote on IAU have helped the town, given that a wagon wasn't building on him. There might have been people suspicious of IAU, but IAU was never at the top of the suspicions list of those people.

The 'it was rational' argument doesn't make sense- as I noted, IAAUN was perfectly viable at that point, the deadline was not impending, and he doesn't even explain why it is that armlx was apparently scummy in his eyes.

Again, I don't agree with the armlx vote either, and also - no, IAU was not going to get lynched. I can troll through the people's posts at that time if you want, no one bar GS had listed IAU as their top suspect. People mentioning suspicions of IAU does not necessarily lead to IAU getting lynched.

Like I've repeated a lot of times already, GS had his vote on a person on whom a wagon was not building. We could go back and forth over this if you want, but it's pretty clear that IAU was never the top lynch candidate, and that GS had already been calling for his lynch for two weeks to no avail. There was no point to it.

See my behaviour in BM's Judgement Day Mafia, where I was town and adamant ABR was scum, misrepresenting me, and so on, and compare it to GS' play here.

I can see how this might lead you to believe that GS is scum, but GS is not ABR. I played in a game where GS was scum and I was town, and I can link you to it if you want. GS-scum plays differently from this.

Bah, if you're convinced someone's scum, it's your duty as a pro-towner to do everything in your power to get 'em lynched.

I wrote this there, and I firmly believe it.

GS clearly did not do everything within his power to get IAAUN lynched.

Therefore, he's either not town, or was not really convinced IAAUN was scum.

Problem is, the repeated confirm votes very much do seem to suggest GS was convinced IAAUN was scum. Hence, there's a contradiction there, which implies to me that Greasy Spot was not being 100% genuine. If someone's not being genuine, it makes me think there's a decent chance of them being scum.

GS

did

do what he could to get IAU lynched.

I point to the fact that at least 10 of his 29 posts have anti-IAU sentiment, either by attacking him, or calling for his lynch.

I point also to the fact that he's voted IAU... five times. Which is, you know, five times more than anyone else has.

How you come to the conclusion that he wasn't trying to get IAU lynched, when he's clearly tried, and tried harder than anyone in this game, is beyond me.

You're ignoring the third possibility, which I've been mentioning, that he just no longer saw any point in his IAU vote. You keep bringing up that IAU was a viable lynch option, but I really don't see it, given that hardly anyone had him listed as their top suspicion, much less voted him.

Yes, he probably was convinced of it. Again though, he's already followed up on his suspicion for a long time, to no point.

[ting =)]

@strife.
Well, I'm being attacked. I kind of have to say something.

@mue.
I thought you were town you know. =(

And again, that just isn't true.

Sure, there hadn't been much progress on IAAUN (though there may have been more if GS had, YOU KNOW, GIVEN REASONS- which is part of why I think GS wasn't genuine). But there were plenty of people expressing suspicion of him, as much as anyone else who wasn't StrangerCoug- so immediately after SC claimed is pretty much the last time i'd expect anyone to think the IAAUN wagon was viable.

And again, there is no more reason to believe the armlx wagon was viable at that point than that the IAAUN one was.

You keep bringing up that IAU was a viable lynch option, but I really don't see it, given that hardly anyone had him listed as their top suspicion, much less voted him.

Greasy Spot unvoting made the IAAUN wagon unviable. Again, at the time he unvoted, the only wagons which had EVER gotten more than two votes were on players who had made strong claims, which had caused those wagons to subside, and Korts. Plus Vamp, who was a) inactive and in obvious need of replacement, and b) the guy most people were saying should be vigged.

I figured you'd say this.

No.

IAU was never going to get lynched to begin with. Again, no one ever had IAU as their top suspect except for GS, and again there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on any of the other players. GS would have had to have been really dense to not realize after two weeks that his vote wasn't going anywhere.

If he'd gone to Korts, I could have seen the point- he went to armlx, who had never had more than one vote on him. You could argue that rofl's vote on armlx was far more hopeless than Greasy's on IAAUN.

Are you purposefully ignoring all the people who jumped on IAAUN for suggesting GS was a good vigging?

Not only was the wagon not unviable, he jumped off at precisely the point where it might have started to gather speed if he hadn't.

Again, I don't agree with the armlx vote either

Are you purposely ignoring all the people who weren't even talking about IAU? Or the fact that there were less people jumping on IAU as there were jumping on other people?

See earlier bit of this post.

My case on GS is that his pattern of behaviour fits perfectly with a bus.

My defense on GS is that his pattern of behaviour also fits perfectly with exasperated townie. [Insert quote here mentioning two weeks, number of posts.. yadda yadda]

-snipping-

[ting =)]

But this is precisely it. I feel like GS is playing contrary to his meta. The GS I'm familiar with is not only stupid, but incredibly stubborn and bullheaded, ala early Battle Mage. It's why i feel your 'rational thing to do' defence doesn't work- I've never known GS to be rational when he's got a bee in his bonnet.

I point you to newbie 548, a game I played with GS, and the game from which I'm basing my meta on him. In this game, he makes a number of logical cases, gives reasons for his votes, that kind of thing. He is also scum.

This is my second game with GS, and he's playing drastically different from what I'd expect from GS-scum, I've never seen him this stubborn.

Which game did you play with him?

---

He is very dense. But even so, that's just not true.

At the point where he unvoted, the chance of an IAAUN lynch was as high as it had ever been.

Have you ever been in an OMGUS war, Ting? People get angry, they get stubborn. Greasy Spot indicated this kind of mindset, but then took an action completely contrary to it. Which is why i think it might have been faked.

Roflcopter pushed armlx for longer than that.

Why was it 'obviously not going to happen' here, but viable enough to reconfirm his vote

See earlier bit about IAU never being at the top of anyone's suspicious list.

What you've done,

and this also applies to the last quote I quoted

- is lump him in a pre-defined group, 'tunneling townies,' and then said that his actions don't match that of a tunneling townie.

I don't agree with lumping people into groups, simply because we're people. No one fits into rigid categories, and no one should be expected to behave in particular ways. I think he did the right thing not tunneling.

If everyone thought this way, it'd force everyone to behave in certain ways all the time just simply to fit with people's conception of their townie meta.

It would have seemed viable enough to GS early on in the game, which is when he was doing all his reconfirming. After two weeks though? No.

---

Two weeks in a large is not that long.

Posting in general was in a lull for a lot of that time.

And again, what made the wagon so much less viable than at the time of his previous post, when he confirmed his vote again? That's a big turnaround for one post, no?

I told the Mod in the beginning I didn't realize this was a 20 person game. I wouldn't have signed up for it. I don't do well in large games because I can't my head around all the different people. It is hard enough on the smaller games. That is why I have requested replacement.

Long enough for a mini though, which I'm assuming is what GS thought he signed up for, and which is what I'm assuming GS is more used to.

Well, his 'turnaround post' came

6 days after his reconfirm.

Not so big a turnaround given that he had that much time to change his mind, no?

---

Do you not think it's better play for townies to keep their word? He broke a promise. Which indicates either he wasn't taking the promise seriously, in which case he's dishonest, or he felt he had strong reason to shift- but he NEVER GAVE ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A GOOD JUSTIFICATION. This is what I'm getting really chuffing annoyed about. You're saying it might have been a better, more rational move to unvote IAAUN there. You're probably right. But nothing about Greasy Spot's earlier play was good or rational, so why would we expect him to start there all of a sudden?

This is what's irking me too. You're being suspicious of my predecessor for doing something which you've admitted is both good, and rational. You're basically saying that you're not going to accept GS' behaviour as townie behaviour unless it's accompanied by stupidity.

You've created a false dichotomy that GS can only be either stupid townie, or bussing scum, and you're unwilling to accept the possibility that GS might have actually been a rational person.

And again, I've already told you why i don't buy it.

'It wasn't going anywhere' is like THE most obvious, scum unvoting scum without good reason, excuse there is.

And it's not true.

See earlier bit about why I don't think IAU would have been lynched day one, and about why his wagon really just wasn't going anywhere.

I've seen people buss as scum, and I've bussed as scum - if this is bussing(which it isn't), then it's the most horribly executed buss ever.

----

Yes, but THAT'S NOT WHAT GREASY'S LIKE.

Also, do you honestly believe Greasy did everything in his power to try to get IAAUN lynched?

It cuts both ways btw. See my comment on day one:

Which game are you basing this on?

You're asking me to accept that my predecessor is scum

because he behaved rationally.

?!@?@!

In one breath, you're telling me that GS has to behave irrationally in order to fit with your meta of town-GS, and here, you're telling me that you expect rational cases from him.

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

For the same reason people called for vamp/k7 vigs? I'm getting slightly miffed that people expect GS to behave stupidly, and also expect me to point out rational things that he's done. That's.. holding the same person to a double standard.

[ting =)]

hallo.

haven't read the last couple of pages, sorry, just flew back in to college.

limited access till i get the connection set up in my place.

[ting =)]

I'm still here. I don't have internet access for a long enough time to actually read up though.

I should have my connection set up in a couple of days.

[ting =)]

Okay, I was thinking.

Off the top of my head, I might vote Fonz.

I originally had him pegged as misguided townie who really thought that GS was distancing, but now I'm not so sure. I'll have to reread him though.

I'm not so sure about Korts. I had him as town when I first read through the game to catch up. I'll reread him too.

I'll have free time tomorrow, I'll go reread day 2 to see if anyone else hits my head.

[ting =)]

ust untrue. If no one else had IA as a top suspect, why did Rofl vote for him?

Wee!

One

vote.

You're missing my point, and you know you're missing it. IAM wasn't going to get lynched. GS could see that he was not going to get a majority concensus. Suspicion != will to lynch. There are numerous people here who have had suspicion, even votes directed at them, but I doubt if more than a handful are serious lynch candidates. IAN was not going to get lynched.

---

just don't know what to say here. This is simply untrue. There were like, 2-3 pages when the discussion was centred firmly on IAAUN.

Again, that's not going to lead to his lynch. There are a lot of people who've been discussed, and discussed more. For the better part of the previous day, I've discussed a lot with you. I didn't see you as a lynch candidate at all.

Just because people discuss someone, or even vote someone, doesn't mean that they're willing to actually lynch him.

---

urthermore, you're simultaneously suggesting that Greasy Spot was just being his idiotic self (with the repeated confirms) but contending that he was acting as a rational townie would in dropping the case. This is contradictory. (As is your recent claim that your defence is that he 'acted like an exasperated townie' when previously you claimed the move was rational. So, rational, or born of frustration?)

False dichtomy. You can have exasperated but rational people. They're not mutually exclusive things.

RE: 1037. I disagree.

I have significant GS meta too, and this seems at odds to his prior town behaviour.

And there's no double standard: no-one's asking you to provide examples of rational behaviour and expecting him to be dumb.

You yourself brought up the 'this is just what Greasy is like' defence, whilst also claiming his action was rational. This is a masterpiece of craplogic- you contradict yourself, then try to misrepresent others as forcing you into it. You can try the 'Greasy is just being himself' defence. You can try the 'it was the rational thing to do' defence. You cannot use both.

I have GS scum meta. This does not fit. I can link you, if you're willing to read through the game, but reading a full game just for meta is somethign I cringe at and would probably be too lazy to do, so not holding it against you if you dont' feel like checking out the game.

YES, there is. You've been saying that your meta of gs-town is an 'irrational' tunneling townie. You've also been asking me for cases and for other 'rational' actions that GS has done to prove that he's town.

You're being suspicious of my predecessor for doing something which you've admitted is both good, and rational. You're basically saying that you're not going to accept GS' behaviour as townie behaviour unless it's accompanied by stupidity.

In one breath, you're telling me that GS has to behave irrationally in order to fit with your meta of town-GS (tunneling townie), and here, you're telling me that you expect rational cases from him.

I'm getting slightly miffed that people expect GS to behave stupidly, and also expect me to point out rational things that he's done. That's.. holding the same person to a double standard.

When you stop making contradictory accusations, expect me to stop making the 'contradictory' defenses you're forcing.
[/quote]

Like I've said, you've forced both. One by pulling your, 'this is what GS is not like' meta attack, and the other with your calling for examples of rational actions.

When you stop making contradictory accusations, expect me to stop making forced defences.

[ting =)]

ebwop: messed up the quoting. meant to delete that bit but forgot.

[ting =)]

ing wrote:
Just because people discuss someone, or even vote someone, doesn't mean that they're willing to actually lynch him


I'm having serious problems with this sentence. Voting should indicate intent, or at the very least willingness to lynch.

No. I sometimes vote people just to see how they'll react. That doesn't mean I'd be willing to keep my vote on them all the way to a lynch. Just from this game, you can find instances of people pulling back their vote on someone because they're not willing to take it to a lynch.

Also, if you read my other stuff, my emphasis is on people

discussing.

That's all people were doing on IAM - there were hardly even people who were willing to take it to a vote.

[ting =)]

I'm find it odd how GS posted two posts after fl's claim yet didn't care to comment on it...

I find it odd how you're suddenly putting heat on GS, after more or less ignoring the whole thing with Fonz for the whole yesterday.

[ting =)]

vote:fonz.

Putting my vote where my mouth is. I'm less sure about the korts case, but i'm willing to switch my vote if I have to.

[ting =)]

You're deliberately ignoring mine, which is that that is not true.Were you around at the time? I clearly felt at that point that IAAUN was a viable lynch.

Not ignoring, I just don't believe it. We're not going to agree on this. No way IAU was getting lynched.

Eh?

discussion != will to lynch. Just because people are discussing someone doesn't mean they intend to lynch him.

Obvious, blatant, and outright lie. I NEVER EVER EVER asked ting to demonstrate that Greasy Spot's actions were rational. You volunteered the 'it was rational' defence.'

Uh huh, asking me to point out GS' reasons, or GS' case against IAU obviously don't count as asking me to rationalize his actions.

You're just being dishonest here. I said Greasy's and IAAUN's actions with regard to one another looked like bussing. You volunteered the defence that his actions were rational since there was no chance of an IAAUN lynch. You also raised the contradictory point that he was just acting erratically as per his meta.

The contradiction was introduced by you, not by me, and saying otherwise is blatant mendacity.

No. That was one of your arguments - they looked like they were bussing, yes. BUT, you also raised the points that:

1)His actions don't fit your conception of his irrational-tunneling-town meta. (I can quote this if you want.)
2)He didn't bother to rationalize his actions with regards to IAU. (I can also quote this.)

[ting =)]

I can understand if you guys are going to lynch me just to avoid a no lynch, but I obviously don't agree.

Like strife said, the case on me boils down to 'GS looked like he was distancing.' Korts and FL don't seem that convinced of it all and are just plain hopping, but it's too close to deadline for me to raise a hoohah over it, there wouldn't be time to raise a counter wagon.

I'm a townie.

I still feel a Fonz lynch is best, but I don't think there's enough time to rally a wagon on him given that deadline is tomorrow. We've been arguing minuitae for the most part, but consider looking at him tomorrow. GS was vehement to the point of being personal, he was a far cry from distancing, and his switch to armlx obviously reads like plain exasperation if you bother to re-read.

I don't think there's anything more for me to say about GS really as far as proof goes, so I'll just let my death my speak. Think about if GS really did look like distancing, and I don't think anyone thought so either, at the time of his switch. It wasn't till Fonz brought it up that it became an issue.

Obviously, being dead won't make mean I'm right, and I'll admit that even I felt that Fonz was town for most of the game. I could very well be wrong, and I'm nowhere near certain, but if I had to pick someone, I'd pick Fonz for scum simply because I know GS wasn't distancing.

[ting =)]

i know. i also think that, korts lynch<no lynch<ting lynch.

[ting =)]

Addressing these bits first.

ting =) wrote:
i know. i also think that, korts lynch<no lynch<ting lynch.


You'd prefer to lynch a claimed doctor? Wow, just wow. Why is this scum not dead yet?

Funny. It's pretty clear I think that a ting lynch is better than a no lynch, is better than a korts lynch. I've made that pretty clear in my comments about me accepting my lynch. You seem to have been the only one to have drawn this conclusion. Why, I wonder?

ting =) wrote:
GS was vehement to the point of being personal, he was a far cry from distancing, and his switch to armlx obviously reads like plain exasperation if you bother to re-read.


As I've said many times, this to me is a bus sign, not a sign to the contrary.

It's your interpretation, and you're just going, 'it looks like it.'

Obviously, being dead won't make mean I'm right, and I'll admit that even I felt that Fonz was town for most of the game. I could very well be wrong, and I'm nowhere near certain, but if I had to pick someone, I'd pick Fonz for scum simply because I know GS wasn't distancing.

This reads to me very much like an admission of OMGUS. Whether you 'know' *ahem* that GS wasn't distancing is irrelevant.

The question for everyone, is the very low-probability instance that you come up town, is whether it was reasonable to consider GS-IAAUN distancing a strong possibility.

I believe so, for all the reasons I've been outlining throughout.

(You never really addressed the IAAUN -> Greasy actions, which I also think add to the case).

This is

not

an admission of omgus. I have insider knowledge that the rest of the players don't, I'm more informed than they are on the whole ting-fonz thing simply because I know my role.

This is the issue I was bringing up with my 'death' posts, tl;dr version: 'Guys, do you really think that gs was bussing IAU, or do you think it's simply something Fonz made up?

I'm leaning to the latter, like I said, because I know the former isn't true.

There's also the possibility where we're both town, but I really don't think that's true. You gave nowhere near as much flak to IAU as you did to GS, despite your insistence that you would have lynched him.

What IAU->Greasy actions? I've been rather meticulous in replying to your posts, could you point out what I missed?

[ting =)]

Yup. You're just wrong. Or lying, whatever.

There was more chance of IA getting lynched there than THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY GOT LYNCHED. Any remotely impartial reader of day one would draw that conclusion, imho. Hell, there was probably more likelihood of an IAAUN lynch at that point, than there was of a Ting lynch at many points today- but unlike Greasy, I actually stuck to my guns, because my suspicion is genuine, and it now looks like your lynch is a serious possibility.

Funny then, how IAU, with more chance of getting lynched than THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY GOT LYNCHED, was not actually the guy who got lynched, no?

I also particularly like the italicized bit. No one here is as convinced as you of my 'guilt.' Either you're really as convinced as you sound, or you're just 'sticking to your guns,' because you said you would earlier on and can't drop it anymore. Either way, I'm going to laugh when I'm dead and it's clear that I'm neither wrong or lying, because then everyone would have to decide if

you

are wrong or lying.

They were discussing him, and saying that his behaviour was scummy.

That's a statement that could apply to nearly all the players here.Just because all the players are discussing someone, doesn't mean he's at the top of their list, or that they're willing to lynch him.

I asked you to point out where GS made a real case against IAAUN because I claimed that he never made one, and you disagreed. That's clearly not asking you to rationalise his actions, it's disputing a point of fact.

I can't possibly expect you to know what was going through Greasy's mind, if indeed anything was, and one can never be sure.

You however, volunteered the defence that Greasy Spot's actions made perfect sense from a town perspective because of X Y and Z.

When those things CLEARLY AREN'T TRUE, of course I'm going to point it out. Greasy Spot was only one of several suspects at that point- your incredibly scummy, mendacious defence of him has put you into clear number one position.

No. Saying GS never made a case on IAU is an accusation in and of itself. It furthers your, 'GS had no reasons for his IAU vote.' The burden of proof is obvioulsy on me as his replacee to show that he had a rational reason behind his vote. Don't play semantics. Saying GS had no case on IAU is obviously asking me to rationalize his vote.

Funny.

The

only

time I've mentioned GS' actions making sense is with regards to his unvote of IAU.

About his IAU vote, I've already said that I myself wouldn't have tunneled for so long, and that I wouldn't have vote/unvoted anyone without giving reasons. I've made numerous statements to the effect of, 'I don't understand why GS...'

You're taking an argument I've made for one purpose and applying it to another place where I never applied it to at all.

I've forgotten the term for it, but there you go.

--

1)His actions don't fit your conception of his irrational-tunneling-town meta. (I can quote this if you want.)

THAT'S A (PARDON MY FRENCH) FUCKING LIE.

RE: 1037. I disagree. I have significant GS meta too, and this seems at odds to his prior town behaviour

But this is precisely it. I feel like GS is playing contrary to his meta. The GS I'm familiar with is not only stupid, but incredibly stubborn and bullheaded, ala early Battle Mage. It's why i feel your 'rational thing to do' defence doesn't work- I've never known GS to be rational when he's got a bee in his bonnet.

Have you ever been in an OMGUS war, Ting? People get angry, they get stubborn. Greasy Spot indicated this kind of mindset, but then took an action completely contrary to it. Which is why i think it might have been faked.

But nothing about Greasy Spot's earlier play was good or rational, so why would we expect him to start there all of a sudden?

QED.

So Fonz, I was lying how? A clear portion of your case was that you don't think you GS was capable of acting rationally, because it didn't fit with your conception of him being a stuborn-tunneling-townie. These are quotes of yours that I've quoted before in response. I could probably find more if I look directly at your posts.

--

I raised the point of 'well would we really expect Greasy Spot to act rationally.' This was A RESPONSE to your 'it was rational' defence. You did not offer these defences in response to contradictory accusations- you made contradictory defences, and I attacked those.

No. I can quote myself if you want. I mentioned his

unvote of IAU

as being rational. I was not talking about his IAU vote, or his insistence of multiple revoting, or his subsequent armlx vote. In fact, I've mentioned not understanding all of those, and also that I don't agree with tunneling. You're misrepresenting me here.

--

breaking up post. the rest coming.

[ting =)]

My argument, as I'm sure you know and are simply lying about, is that HE DID NOT EXPLAIN OR INDEED ACTUALLY PRESENT A DECENT CASE AGAINST IAAUN IN KEEPING WITH THE LEVEL OF SUSPICION HE EXPRESSED.

The point of this was to demonstrate that his actions are entirely consistent with a desire to distance himself from IAAUN, but not to get him lynched.

See earlier stuff.

To this, you offered two contradictory, and also weak, defences, based around the idea that Greasy was acting rationally. In response to this, it is entirely appropriate to ask both whether this is true, and whether, even if it is true, you would expect Greasy to act perfectly rationally, given both who he is, and the very strong conviction he appeared to have in IAAUN's scumminess- right up until the point where he abruptly dropped it.

Again, I was calling his

unvote of IAU

rational - it accomplished nothing. He's had vote on IAU for a loooong time. Nothing was happening.

I don't think I've ever seen a townie who appeared that convinced drop a case for another that they barely explained, with so long left in the day, and a real prospect of actually still getting suspect number one lynched. If you see something you can't conceive of an actual townie doing, there's a big chance it's an indication of scum.

We won't agree on this. IAU was not going to get lynched. We've gone back and forth over this, GS had his vote on IAu for forever, and it was going nowhere. We've both said our piece on this. We can keep beating this dead horse if you want, but I'd much prefer if we drop it. Unless you have something new to add.

This is not based on a meta of Greasy, but on a meta of like EVERY TOWNIE I'VE EVER SEEN who demonstrated that strong a suspicion. The fact that Greasy himself also has a track record as town of being extremely bullheaded a la early BM when he gets a bee in his bonnet only reinforces it.

Again, for the millionth time, the contradiction is yours and not mine. My case is consistent- Greasy Spot's behaviour towards IAAUN, and IAAUN's toward Greasy, make perfect sense to me as a bus. You have offered contradictory defences.

See earlier bit on how I had to rationalize GS' actions. See quoted, where you're telling me that GS doesn't look like town since he didn't tunnel. I can also quote previous instances where you've said as much, if you want me to.

Again, you're saying both:

1)He doesn't look like town since you expected him to tunnel. (I can quote this.)
2)He doesn't look like town since he wasn't being rational, making cases, etc. (I can also quote this.)

Those two are contradictory. The only way for me to satisfy you on both counts would be to prove that GS was in fact, a rational townie, who was acting irrationally as per your meta of his town play. It's a clear contradiction.

[ting =)]

I'm fine with or without a deadline extension.

Me and Fonz have been dancing for far too long. I wouldn't mind being lynched. I think Fonz will agree that we've both already talked about each other's points at length. I'll stilly reply to his points if he wants to carry this on, but as it is, we're just cluttering the space with walls of text that I'm fairly certain are just being skimmed through by anyone not Fonz or me. I'd do the same.

If by now you still haven't decided which of Fonz/ting/none/both you think is/are scum, it won't change with a two week extension.

[ting =)]

huh? post count? if you mean vote count, only change from the last one the mod posted should be fl's unvote. i think.

'm finding his arguments so dishonest

that's bull. i even quoted your contradictions, but i'm honestly just so tired of going back and forth with you i'm not going to try to hinder my lynch.

i'll leave it up to everyone else to decide where you stand once i'm gone, this argument is too taxing.

[ting =)]

@korts.
Strife mentioned thinking both me and fonz are town earlier on i think. Only fonz and sc have explicitly said they think i'm scum. The only other vote on me is you, who also never expressed ting-scum sentiment.

If i switch my vote to bm, or if you switch your vote to bm, he gets lynched instead of me. I feel that one of either me or fonz needs to be today's lynch though, for reasons I've already said, so i'm not switching mine.

[ting =)]

hm.