Pikmin Mafia - Game over

[JDodge]

standard confirmatory message

[JDodge]

good god

the logic in this game is already awful

[JDodge]

The moderator implied that all the Pikmin are stupid.

"You Pikmin are too uptight."

Implies you are not included in this statement, which therefore implies you aren't a Pikmin.

"No wonder the moderator called

you

stupid."

Implies you are not stupid, despite the moderator stating that Pikmin in general are stupid.

So... What's going on here mate?!

It's so damn obvious how it was intended that the arguments about this make me want to fling myself into the mouth of the nearest Creeping Crysanthemum.

"You Pikmin"

does not in any way imply that he is not a Pikmin

. You say "You people", right? Are you not a person?

[JDodge]

First of all, I'm not even voting the guy. I know that "You people" or, in this case, "You Pikmin" could be interpreted as an address to a specific group of Pikmin/People - but it's also

possible

he meant it in a way someone would say, "You Americans are idiots" where he is

not

one of the whole, and scrambled to cover his tracks with people demanding an explanation. But that is beyond hoping for now that you guys basically gave him the out card.

That was my point... shouldn't we have something more concrete to use instead of just a random lynching?

What makes you think Greasy Spot was about to be lynched?

Nice Russel's Teapot argument.

But yes, if you want to spend the rest of the game pointlessly saying that you're certain someone is scum because of one of the most idiotic semantics arguments I've ever seen in my life, then when someone points out that you're likely wrong you say "it's possible he meant it the way I think", then I'll be happy to do everything "possible" to show you to the business end of a lynching rope.

Vote: Kison

[JDodge]

Where'd I say I was certain he was scum?

Ha. Knew you'd attack that instead of going after the actual argument. Glad to see that worked so well. I'm more sure that you're scum than you are that anyone is, frankly. And I know you were never certain that he was scum.

[JDodge]

In any event, JDodge, it's like I said : That statement

can

be interpreted both ways. The entire point of what I did last page was to pressure him in the event that he did in fact make a slip. Whether or not you think my retractment is being "proven wrong" and hiding is up to you to decide, but it's not worth my time trying to scare the guy when you basically gave him the nudge.

Again with the ignorance. Brilliant!

Let's look at it this way - any statement that anyone can make can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Perhaps by "you Pikmin" he meant "I really really want a tuna sandwich". Or "A priest molested me when I was a young boy". The possibility is existant; does that make them right?

This is why we go with what is most likely, and why we have helpful tools like Occam's Razor and Hanlon's Razor.

Occam's Razor -

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". This is best paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best". This can be applied when you consider that the most likely explanation is the usage of words consistent with an everyday phrase over a Freudian slip.

Hanlon's Razor -

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

. This can be applied when you consider that it could be a poor choice of words as opposed to him being malicious in the manner that he is not a Pikmin.

Remember that everything needs an explanation - but are you going to go with what's more likely or whatever fits your needs the best?

This is a basic part of mafia psychology -

as a rule

, townies will go with what is more likely while scum will go with what fits their needs the best. Therefore, the most logical assumption that

I

can make at the moment is that you are manipulating this situation to suit your own needs - something a townie, by nature, would not do. I want your counter-argument to this, by the way.

[JDodge]

Ha. Knew you'd attack that instead of going after the actual argument. Glad to see that worked so well.

Glad to see if failed so well is more like it, because, I like, you know, responded to it in the simulpost right beneath it... Unless, of course, you think I typed that up somewhere between 1 and 59 seconds. You're just trying to cover your

own

word twisting. A shame it didn't work out for you.

So how about telling us why you lied?

Again back to basic mafia psychology - the lying explanation, malice and all, fits you best in this situation. Anyone who is looking to understand why I did what I did would realize exactly what I intended with that statement if they read it not looking for something to attack.

[JDodge]

Not with the adamancy that you did. And furthermore, they have not commented since I posted my possibility with the exception of Miztef. And even furthermore, I would assume that the most likely person to get this is you - the American. It's a more American expression IIRC - Miztef, being Canadian, has a lovely excuse for not getting it. You don't.

Now, let's consider the whole "making up an explanation" argument. Have you tried to read through and find the explanation? What does my refusal to explain imply in your mind?

[JDodge]

And even furthermore, I would assume that the most likely person to get this is you - the American. It's a more American expression IIRC - Miztef, being Canadian, has a lovely excuse for not getting it. You don't.

What am I

not

getting? It seems like you're the one who's having a hard time grasping that the two interpretations that I presented are equally valid(the second of which seems to be the popular one around here). So please, tell me what I'm not getting, because I'm utterly confused at this point.

You have not proven equal validity.

And you know damn well what I meant by "you don't have an excuse for not getting it", stop playing dumb.

Now, let's consider the whole "making up an explanation" argument. Have you tried to read through and find the explanation? What does my refusal to explain imply in your mind?

The "making up an explanation" is a direct referrance to the

convenient

cover-up you presented for why you lied about me saying I was certain that GS was scum. It's not that you are refusing to explain, it's that I think your explanation is rubbish.

It's a lie, yes. It's a perfectly explainable through logical reasoning lie. Why are you ignoring

that

?

[JDodge]

Assuming we have multiple votes now...

Vote: Gorrad

Has given off his personal scumtell

Vote: Skitzer

"See, I told you so"

Vote: Kison

For yesterday.

Vote: Sonickid

For that post.

[JDodge]

I can post you four cases if anyone feels the need to bitch about me using four votes. There is no reason for anyone to not commit to everyone they find suspicious.

[JDodge]

See, I told you the low majority lynch wasn't a joke...

"I told you so" is relatively scummy

[JDodge]

Ooooooh, JDodge, I have a personal Scumtell? I'd like to hear this one.

I don't release meta-information on people unless I deem it absolutely necessary to do so.

[JDodge]

Did I say I would post a case on you? No. I said I would post 4 cases - not that they would be on the 4 people I am voting. I have one other person that I find suspicious that I have not voted but still have a case against. And before you say "hypocrite" for the whole "no reason not to commit", it is because my case can go either way to the point that I would really like to not have to even state it.

[JDodge]

Vote : JDodge

because he lied yesterday with one of the sketchiest justifications I've ever seen.

Not to mention Flameaxe seemed to be tailing him.

GhostWriter : Don't think I forgot about that question.

Do you seriously, in this day and age, believe that LAL is a valid meta-strategy? And why is a townie tailing me in any way indicative of my alignment? Unless, of course, you have some reason to believe that BBM was

not

a townie.

And it's not sonickid's trying to get info on the nightkill - that can be a wealth of info that people are afraid to pursue nowadays thanks to it supposedly being a scumtell - it's the manner in which he does it which is scummy.

[JDodge]

One does not answer a yes or no question with another question.

[JDodge]

Is that a yes or a no? I want a plain answer without the fluff.

[JDodge]

LAL is an outdated meta if not solely for the purpose that as the meta of the game as a whole has evolved, lying as town in certain situations has become a perfectly acceptable play; numerous traps, gambits, etc. are formed by lies and deceit as a way of covering for gaping holes in mafia-playing skillsets. Mafia are also making conscious efforts to lie as little as possible - this is the main reason why so many people claim townie as scum as opposed to fake-claiming a power role. It's become not worth it for scum to

try

to lie anymore.

Then one must also consider that as the gameplay as a whole has evolved, playstyles have become more diverse; more and more people are falling into their own niche of how to play, and as is such, what is a scumtell for one can be a towntell for another. This makes any universal scumtell or towntell less and less reliable by the day - which makes metagaming your opponents a necessary thing. LAL is one such universal scumtell.

So I must ask you: Do you think that me lying is a towntell for me, a scumtell for me, or a nulltell?

[JDodge]

LAL is an outdated meta if not solely for the purpose that as the meta of the game as a whole has evolved, lying as town in certain situations has become a perfectly acceptable play; numerous traps, gambits, etc. are formed by lies and deceit as a way of covering for gaping holes in mafia-playing skillsets. Mafia are also making conscious efforts to lie as little as possible - this is the main reason why so many people claim townie as scum as opposed to fake-claiming a power role. It's become not worth it for scum to

try

to lie anymore.

Then one must also consider that as the gameplay as a whole has evolved, playstyles have become more diverse; more and more people are falling into their own niche of how to play, and as is such, what is a scumtell for one can be a towntell for another. This makes any universal scumtell or towntell less and less reliable by the day - which makes metagaming your opponents a necessary thing. LAL is one such universal scumtell.

I've never once heard of LAL referred to as an outdated meta. In fact, I've seen it upheld for the most part(unless the liar's name is Albert B. Rampage). But you seem to be suggesting that I look at individual playstyles, and I do agree in part. Could you show me where you have pulled similar stunts as town?

It's up to you to prove your accusation to hold true - where can you say that I would not do this as town? And LAL is an outdated meta. And how often does it work when you see it upheld, anyways? That is an important (and missing) distinction here. "I've seen it upheld" =/= "it works", not to mention said ABR example

proves

its outdatedness quite thoroughly.

So I must ask you: Do you think that me lying is a towntell for me, a scumtell for me, or a nulltell?

I'm factoring in your explanation rather than just the lie itself(which is why I didn't just vote you right off the bat). Yes, I do find this lie to be scummy.

Pourquoi?

[JDodge]

It's up to you to prove your accusation to hold true - where can you say that I would not do this as town?

What is my accusation? That you lied to cast me in a bad image as you placed your vote, and gave a cruddy justification for doing so.

Proving said accusation : I've already proven you lied. The latter part is a matter of perception.

Lastly, you seem to think because you lied that I am sold on you being scum. That's not the case. You also did not answer my question.

Yet you want me to disprove your own perception of events? I'm sorry, but again, it's not up to me to provide proof that your

perception

is wrong until you give a reason as to why it is

right

.

]And LAL is an outdated meta. And how often does it work when you see it upheld, anyways? That is an important (and missing) distinction here. "I've seen it upheld" =/= "it works", not to mention said ABR example proves its outdatedness quite thoroughly.

The ABR example proves that lying does not guarantee scum, which LAL does not

guarantee

as a meta.

No, any meta such as Lynch All _____ is generally designed to say that whomever performs said action is scum. Otherwise it is outdated and useless.

So I must ask you: Do you think that me lying is a towntell for me, a scumtell for me, or a nulltell?

I'm factoring in your explanation rather than just the lie itself(which is why I didn't just vote you right off the bat). Yes, I do find this lie to be scummy.

Pourquoi?

I've already explained why I think it's scummy on day one. You can go back and reread if you want the answer.

You can go ahead and post it again, too. In different words please.

[JDodge]

Yet you want me to disprove your own perception of events? I'm sorry, but again, it's not up to me to provide proof that your perception is wrong until you give a reason as to why it is right.

I never said it was right. That's why it's a

perception

. It's nothing I can prove is right or wrong, but rather is my take on it. I could be wrong, sure. Yet, since I already view the surrounding circumstances by which you went about lying as scummy(which you obviously disagree with), I'm asking if you have done such elsewhere so I can take that into consideration. So, if you're not going to, then I'm not going to sit here and sulk about it.

I cannot disprove your take on something.

You are asking me to essentially change your entire mindset about the entire situation - which is far too nebulous a task.

No, any meta such as Lynch All _____ is generally designed to say that whomever performs said action is scum. Otherwise it is outdated and useless.

It's designed to say that scum is guilty of an action more often than town. Therefore, anyone caught doing this should be lynched. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed to be scum, obviously, since that ignores surrounding circumstances.

...And neither am I, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove anymore.

Therefore LAL is a poor and outdated metastrategy; it would not be were it lynch

certain

liars for

certain

lies. I dislike the use of "he's lying" as an argument; I much prefer "he's lying which is anti-town in this circumstance because of X, Y, Z".

[JDodge]

Then I believe we have reached an impasse.

Clue me in here; what has JDodge 'lied' about?

Read the damn thread.

[JDodge]

Unvote: skitzer, vote: Xdaamno

Asking about something without knowing the context of it.

[JDodge]

Unvote: skitzer, vote: Xdaamno

Asking about something without knowing the context of it.

If it was about anyone else but you, you probably wouldn't be voting me now (foresight bladeblah).

I wanted to post

something

, so I thought it would be a decent idea to have a setence or two about the events from their perspective.

If you think I'm scummy just for that, you're a terrible scumhunter (Which I'm pretty sure you're not), or scum yourself, so IGMEOY.

Don't post anything until you know what you're posting about. All it does is muddy the waters. And by your logic, I'm scum already - why are you being such a votewimp?

And gogo Blazerunner for also proving he isn't reading the game by not noticing that Daamno started the game - didn't replace.

Vote: Blazerunner

.

[JDodge]

Really Daamno? Then why not list "made a mistake" amongst your points? Why was it "terrible scumhunter" or "scum"?

windkirby, I'm not sharing my reasons on Gorrad. I have a meta-read which I am keeping to myself, and I don't really think he's that strong of a lynch candidate anyways. I would much prefer Kison, Blazerunner or Daamno lynch.

Blazerunner, who's to say I didn't see your post saying you weren't really reading? You should either:

A) Start reading

or

B) Ask for replacement. You're useless to us if you're not reading the game, and I'm perfectly happy to get rid of deadweight since that's where the scum is likely to lurk in this multiple-vote environment.

[JDodge]

Blazerunner, you're not even going after me - how could this possibly be OMGUS?

Unvote: Daamno

Satisfactory. Now read the damn game and post some suspicions.

[JDodge]

I was looking at the vote count. Pardon my mistake - my memory is like a steel trap with rusted-out hinges - it snaps shut and then the hinges fall off and things get away from me.

Now, I will admit that I did vote you

as a consequence of you voting me

. But this is because I reread what you said after the vote came as a consequence of your vote for me.

I might be going mad with power having the multiple votes. Never really was good with near-absolute power.

[JDodge]

Unvote: Blazerunner

now where's my kison lynch?

[JDodge]

People cease to speak about Kison, Kison disappears.

I ask where my Kison lynch is, he shows up again.

MASSIVE COINCIDENCE?

[JDodge]

Not this bullshit semantics argument again...

[JDodge]

Not this bullshit semantics argument again...

Um, this is mafia. All we have is what people say. Semantics is a key part of that.

No, logical reasoning is what we have.

All that debating over the use of the word "us" will lead to is a waste of time and a bullshit case based solely on what wording you would have used in this situation. This is further complicated when you realize that some site members are non-native English speakers, and then add in the fact that even native English speakers sometimes word things poorly. So if you want to allege that semantics are a key part of mafia play, I'm going to take that as a reason to ignore your suspicions as based on shaky grounds.

[JDodge]

Not this bullshit semantics argument again...

Um, this is mafia. All we have is what people say. Semantics is a key part of that.

No, logical reasoning is what we have.

All that debating over the use of the word "us" will lead to is a waste of time and a bullshit case based solely on what wording you would have used in this situation. This is further complicated when you realize that some site members are non-native English speakers, and then add in the fact that even native English speakers sometimes word things poorly. So if you want to allege that semantics are a key part of mafia play, I'm going to take that as a reason to ignore your suspicions as based on shaky grounds.

Yes, we do have logical reasoning. However, sometimes that logical reasoning can spring from and use semantics discussion. I'm not calling the semantics a huge part in the case on GS, so if you ignore my suspicions based on them being due to shaky grounds such as semantics you're misrepresenting my case.

1) Stop strawmanning me.
2) No. Give me one example where semantics has ever lead to a good lynch. Because having been here for almost 3 years and having completed over 50 games, I have never really seen a semantics argument that was correct for any reason more than random chance.
3) If you can't think of a logical reason to suspect someone and thus have to go after them on semantics, then your grounds are probably too shaky to support a case. Semantics are a nice way around this.
4) You have not given a good case on GS that I can tell.

[JDodge]

Mod

: Is this

1 JamesThePhox (GhostWriter, Xdaamno)

correct?

Er, no. Sometimes when I update the votecount I forget to update the numbers too. It's fixed now.

On another note,

vote: Xdaamno

for not taking votes seriously enough today.

[JDodge]

On another note,

vote: Xdaamno

for not taking votes seriously enough today.

While this is right, its ironic you would be the one to say it. xd's play has been.... lacking to say the least this game, though if my IRC experience is worth anything its a town tell from him.

I assure you, all my votes are

very

serious.

[JDodge]

Claus is so awesome.

[JDodge]

Simple. In Uprising, my 'slip' was clarified and accepted by the town. I was able to explain it in a way that made everyone undersand and accept what I meant. Here, I cannot possibly see his slip in the light he's trying to show it in.

Did you not read the exchange between JDodge and me back during Day One?

You are a person. If you're pissed at a group of people, you could say, "You people are pissing me off."
Assume GS is a Pikmin. He says, "You Pikmin are stupid."

Doesn't mean he didn't mean it the other way, but I don't see how you can't see

that

possibility.

Also, if you were so sold on this slip being unexplainable any other way, why did you swap votes to Zombie, who, from your perspective, would have had a much lower chance of being scum?

Hypocrite.

[JDodge]

Simple. In Uprising, my 'slip' was clarified and accepted by the town. I was able to explain it in a way that made everyone undersand and accept what I meant. Here, I cannot possibly see his slip in the light he's trying to show it in.

Did you not read the exchange between JDodge and me back during Day One?

You are a person. If you're pissed at a group of people, you could say, "You people are pissing me off."
Assume GS is a Pikmin. He says, "You Pikmin are stupid."

Doesn't mean he didn't mean it the other way, but I don't see how you can't see

that

possibility.

Also, if you were so sold on this slip being unexplainable any other way, why did you swap votes to Zombie, who, from your perspective, would have had a much lower chance of being scum?

Hypocrite.

Explain.

You were incredibly insistent on that being one way yesterday. Now you're lecturing someone else on the same single-mindedness that you yourself possessed.

[JDodge]

Vote: JamesThePhox

[JDodge]

It's worth noting that three out of the five people on my wagon are those whom I have had votes on today.

But I suppose I have had votes on about half the town by now, so that's not that odd.

[JDodge]

My vote's on JDodge because it seems like he's looking for excuses to give out votes. I mean, if you have so many votes everywhere, what's the point? If he neared a lynch though, I'd probably consider unvoting.

There's no point in voting someone in this situation if you don't want them lynched. I'm voting every person who I think would make a good lynch for today, and no more. Either commit and say you're willing to lynch me or unvote now.

[JDodge]

It's 4 out of 6 now. Hell, 3 of them are current votes.

How odd.

[JDodge]

Don't claim. This is a horrid bandwagon and I'm pretty sure I know now why you're coming across as scummy. In 24 hours, I will be voting everyone who is voting Greasy Spot unless they move their votes. It should be incredibly obvious that he's town by now to anyone paying attention to this game.

[JDodge]

Don't claim. This is a horrid bandwagon and I'm pretty sure I know now why you're coming across as scummy. In 24 hours, I will be voting everyone who is voting Greasy Spot unless they move their votes. It should be incredibly obvious that he's town by now to anyone paying attention to this game.

You need to explain this better than "It should be incredibly obvious why he is town" because there is no way I can see the obviousness of his townieness in basically anything he's done, and there's also no reason that you should vote for every single person voting for him. Just because you see that him being town is "incredibly obvious" doesn't mean that it is to the rest of us. I see someone who is being quite scummy, not "obvious town."

Because you are thinking actions from a standard, experienced player. Not from an erratic newbie. This explains the hammer.

Then you realize that the case on the supposed "slip" is about as stable as a New Orleans levee.

Now, for the fun bit of obvious townness - try to place yourself in GS's state of mind. You're not too experienced, you're not quite as logical, and you see a -1 vote sitting there on someone you think is scummy. What do you do as scum? What do you do as town?

As town, your inhibition is greatly reduced - you'd see no problem with hammering right then.

As scum, you'd be a bit confused, a bit more careful - why then, is there no hesitation on the hammer vote?

As neutral, you'd think about how this will affect yourself first - it would not be as immediate.

Learn to psychoanalyze, please.

Also,

Vote: windkirby, PyroDwarf, hasdgfas, Blazerunner

[JDodge]

JD, you do realize that GS has been here for over 3 months and has taken part in many games so far, right? Wouldn't that change opinion of him from being "an erratic newbie" and "not very experienced"? 3 months is enough to join the modding queue, and IC if you have enough completed games, so why do you still consider him extremely inexperienced?

That is not the point. The issue here is that he does not have a grasp of mafia concepts in the same manner that you do - again, try putting yourself in his shoes and see if you can see the light here.

[JDodge]

I don't know. GS had some suspicions on him even in Day 1. Why would he hammer, as town, knowing that it might lead to a miss lynch, thus adding even MORE suspicion on him?

Then again, I know that ZS was innocent, so that would add a bit of a bias, but still. If he is town and I was standing in his shoes, I wouldn't have hammered.

Because he wasn't thinking that far due to lowered inhibition, which is a sign of towniness - why would he hammer as scum? Your argument is self-defeating.

[JDodge]

To everyone disagreeing with me on GS: Have you actually followed through with what I said in trying to put yourself into GS's state of mind, or are you just saying "BUT I LEARNED THAT WAS SCUMMY EARLIER" whilst ignoring the real point of my argument, which is that any rational and thinking scum would not in any way hammer suddenly like that, and if said person is irrational and wasn't thinking, that said hammer is a nulltell as you can't really tell what their state of mind was like at the time they hammered?

[JDodge]

Really that's kind of WIFOM, though... You're saying that scum wouldn't do it because scum would do it. Not all scum are smart, y'know.

I am not. I am saying that rational, logical scum would not do so. Which leaves room for the illogical and irrational, which either way is not a strong enough basis for a bandwagon.

[JDodge]

I didn't think that he was just as likely to be scum, but GS wasn't going to be the lynch.

For JDodge, I saw at least where he was coming from with the other three. But when he votes me for some misteeeeeerious reason, I'd bloody well like to hear it.

And I've already told you the reason. I have no obligation to tell you my meta read on you just as you have no obligation to respond to it. You're overreacting to

one vote

.

[JDodge]

After reading again... I'm pretty much where I was. I'm a tad more suspicious of Gorrad because his voting seems just a bit opportunistic, as Kison said, but his request for a roleclaim at 157 seems pretty protown... I was also considering GS as town a little more, but I can't get past the hammer. 160, merely

three posts

after ZS denied claiming, is just awful, even if his performance hasn't been optimal in the past.

If anything, the hammer after the claim refusal is even

more

of a reason why the hammer is not abnormal - refusing to claim is generally a scum-action.

[JDodge]

Unvote: Gorrad, JamesThePhox, windkirby

Vote: Skitzer

Myself (obvobv) and GS are both horrifyingly bad lynches. I am satisfied with windkirby and hesitating on JamesThePhox. I would

still

prefer a Kison lynch to all others.

[JDodge]

Just wondering, is there any specific reason you are hesitating on JtP?

Yes. Look at his posts.

[JDodge]

Edit: Mod does not like quote pyramids.

And then it takes a sudden and steep upturn again.

This implies boredom, not scumminess.

[JDodge]

Edit: Mod does not like quote pyramids.

Is this because I disagree with you? If my view on Kison was biasing my view on anyone, wouldn't that imply that I would be actively advocating a Kison lynch?

[JDodge]

Hey, then DON'T believe it, I'm cool with that. Whichever of JDodge/GS isn't lynched today, I'll take care of 'em tonight. 'Kay?

Sorry, but you don't get to decide two people to pick a kill from - if you're going to claim vig, you'd damn well better be prepared to follow the will of the town.

[JDodge]

See the post directly following.

I am well aware of that post's existence. I am laying down the general ground rules for claimed vigs for future reference.

[JDodge]

Vote: Kison

I'm not analyzing the recent stuff, I will analyze any posts after this one. I have been keeping up with this game, I'm not going back through it again. I will answer any specific questions about prior events though.

[JDodge]

Jdodge, do you think JTP is town?

I think he's a newb.

Le Greasy Spot chariot est très mal. Comprende?

And why isn't Kison dead yet?

[JDodge]

Jdodge, do you think JTP is town?

I think he's a newb.

Scum can be noobs as well.

But not all noobs are scum.

[JDodge]

And why isn't Kison dead yet?

Because he is Town.

Why are we to assume that Kison is town?

The issue herein is that your

only

defense the entire game has been "because I'm town". Why aren't you giving any other reasoning?

[JDodge]

Good god Gorrad, do you still think that was a slip?

[JDodge]

Unvote, vote: armlx

I'm on to you.

[JDodge]

Now now, greasy scum, remember- when JD has a tell on someone, he doesn't need to explain it. It doesn't even matter if they're confirmed town! He has found scum!

I've told you time and time again I'm not revealing my meta-reads on people. And the lack of case this time is not due to meta-read, it's due to not having the time to post it.

[JDodge]

Still waiting on that case Jdodge.

Why specifically are you waiting for the case?

[JDodge]

That doesn't answer the question that well.

[JDodge]

I feel it does. You make a vote and make statements that imply there is a large case behind it, and I will be interested in hearing what you have to say so I can respond.

No, not really. "Because you imply that you have one" is not a real reason for wanting one. If I had a bridge to jump off of, would you want one too?

[JDodge]

I feel it does. You make a vote and make statements that imply there is a large case behind it, and I will be interested in hearing what you have to say so I can respond.

No, not really. "Because you imply that you have one" is not a real reason for wanting one. If I had a bridge to jump off of, would you want one too?

What are you trying to say here?

How I see it:

You vote me and say you have a case.

I ask for said case.

You try to get out of giving said case on semantics.

No, I am asking specifically

why a case is required to be presented on you at this time

.

[JDodge]

No, I am asking specifically

why a case is required to be presented on you at this time

.

Because people are asking for one.

And why are they asking one?

The main question here is why it is imperative that I present a case on a single person for the entire game to move onwards. Or do the people who are absolutely demanding one trying to keep the game stopped?

[JDodge]

Jdodge, you vote someone and claim you have a case of reasons, and people are naturally going to be interested in why you are voting that person. When you fail to come up with said case, it makes it seem a lot like you were voting off stone nothing.

Answer the damn question and stop avoiding it, scumbag. Why is it

absolutely imperative

that my vote be explained

before anything else can be done to move the game forward?

I'm more inclined to think that those demanding a case whilst contributing nothing else are more likely to be scum.

[JDodge]

I never said the game could not move forward. I simply said I was waiting on your case. Apparently, other people were too.

Stop trying to straw man your way into a case you build as you go.

Yet you aren't doing anything to move it forward. Why is that?

[JDodge]

You have a case, you bitch at me for not presenting mine, you don't present yours.

Why is this?

Editted out the quote pyramid - MBF

[JDodge]

So you're suspicious of them, yet you don't have a case on either?

Editted out the quote pyramid - MBF

[JDodge]

Stop stalling and post your damned case.

I'm not stalling. I'm contributing by having a useful discussion. If anything,

you're

stalling.

[JDodge]

Arguing with you is possibly one of the dumbest things possible.

I have reasons I have found them suspicious which I have already stated, but I do not have a full PBPA case on either.

rebelkidrules (3:11:26 PM): jdodge1019: uhjdodge1019: i acknowledge and concede points all the time
rebelkidrules (3:11:34 PM): this is the most incorrect statement currently in chat

So I am to understand that you do not have an actual case for either at this time, and your suspicions are based more in the theoretical?

Why do you bring quotes entirely out-of-context from out-of-game sources into this in a vain attempt to discredit my arguments?

Editted out the quote pyramid - MBF

[JDodge]

However, my vote is mildly serious at this point.

Vote UA

Self voting in the random voting stage

A) prevents the creation of the small tidbits I described. Such a cop out.
B) is a dumb waste. If you are pro-town, why would you vote for a confirmed townie?

This is a piss-poor vote.

HAHA...Don't get your panties in a bunch just yet.

You pikmins

are way too uptight. No wonder mod called you stupid.

Why would you refer to us as you pikmins GS? Slip up?

He started that god-awful "it was a slip" thing. He soon thereafter (after getting a few people onboard of it) drops it in favour of this:

After some consideration while I'm not marathoning and/or studying, and looking back at CotI and Muffin there, Zombie's behavior definitely lines up with newbie scum, not just newbie.

Unvote, Vote Zombie

This is patently and horrifically false.

To summarize, Muffin was new, did the same "Don't want to vote, ok wagon time" and turned up scum.

This vote was then justified by "someone else who was new did the same thing in another game and turned up scum"

I've come to realize since yesterday GS is just going to be dumb every game. Just trying to work out which kinds of dumb are scummy for him

This is a convenient way to distance himself from the now-failing slip line of logic.

I'm putting Jdodge on being Dodge on the unexplained multivotes for now, though, you know, real cases help too.

Why not the same adamancy then as there is now?

Note that WindKirby

did

find this odd then and now, and this combined with other posts make him incredibly likely town. The wagon on him is terrible.

While this is right, its ironic you would be the one to say it. xd's play has been.... lacking to say the least this game, though if my IRC experience is worth anything its a town tell from him.

Using irrelevant, unprovable and in general poor meta evidence to affirm the towniness of another player who is lurking almost non-stop in this game. Note that said person was voting him.

I support GS's stance here. The wagon is pretty BS'y IMO.

Welcome to the other side of the tracks.

I'm with Dodge here. This is definitely town GS to me, based on Adel's mountainous open.

You figured out which kinds of dumb are which?

Much rather see a JtP lynch though.

He was your prime suspect yesterday. Why is he now only a secondary suspect?

I've definitely come around to Jdodge/JtP's point of view on this. The blatant opportunism is astounding.

Please look in a mirror at some point in the near future.

K, that doesn't really help but ok. Unless there's some enemy that can blow people up I see no reason Gorrad isn't confirmed town.

Armlx, meet Volatile Dweevil.

A quick search for explode, bomb, and blow shows nothing.

I find it slightly odd that you did not search for bombrock, considering Gorrad said he had the vig because

he

had a bombrock.

I don't usually trust scum's pre-death posts as much of anything.

This is a horrifically bad post. There is so much info that can be gained in those posts.

There are many people who have not given their position on a Kison lynch yet. Those who haven't should now/soon.

Why is this imperative?

This is the best I can do on Saturday at 2:30 AM.

[JDodge]

It's important to note that my case against armlx is mainly that he starts things like the whole "GS slip" fiasco and then takes the opposite position later when he realizes that it's not advantageous to remain on that side.

This in and of itself is the main reason why I think Greasy Spot is town.

Basically, armlx seems to be always on the "winning side" of these debates, despite

starting

on the "losing side" until it was decided that wouldn't be good for him.

[JDodge]

That...is a surprisingly good point. Let me look into it a bit, see if I agree.

Y'see? Was that so hard?

No, but you kind of ruined my pressuring to see how armlx would react.

[JDodge]

unvote, vote: windkirby

Makes no sense not to lynch him for the following circumstances:

1. If jester, better to get him out of the way now when he can't hurt us as much
2. If town, he's useless
3. If scum, we want to lynch him anyways
4. If survivor, still useless

[JDodge]

1- I really don't like players replacing back.

Agree. Jdodge and Gorrad were definitely killed for a good reason the first time around.

I don't understand

why

since I only really got on to anyone until I replaced back in and completely pegged armlx.

Why did everybody ignore that again?

Oh right, that retarded "you must post your case immediately for it to be valid" thing you all got stuck in your head.

I groaned out loud when the colour claim happened and everyone

agreed

to it. There's no reason why that should have

ever

happened.