Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[ting =)]

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

Rereading GS' and your posts now.

[StrangerCoug]

Uh, not it's not. You can lynch a player for his predecessor's actions, sometimes he may choose to mount a defence, but it can't be expected of them. Are you telling me you've never replaced someone who was town, but where for the life of you you couldn't begin to imagine what they were thinking? I've done that plenty of times.

I've replaced both scum and town. In fact, I replaced an already suspicious player in a previous game who happened to be townie. I'd have to look the game up, though (it's "Mayor's Mansion" and either Mini 601 or Mini 604. The game is over, so I can talk about it.).

Also, you flat-out contradict yourself there. You claim he plays the newbie card for Vamp, and also that he refuses to defend him. Obviously, these cannot both be true, since playing the newbie card is a defence, of sorts.

OK, let me rephrase that: He plays the newbie card for Vamp and refuses to give any other defense for his actions.

[The Fonz]

OK, but why should he, then? If all he sees when he looks at Vamp is, 'GRRRR, dumb n00b' then that's all he need say about his predecessor. You seem to be of the opinion that Muerrto should account for Vamp's thought process or something, which doesn't really make sense. You can desire a muerrto lynch because of Vamp, sure. You can't ask Muerrto to defend Vamp.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, but why should he, then? If all he sees when he looks at Vamp is, 'GRRRR, dumb n00b' then that's all he need say about his predecessor. You seem to be of the opinion that Muerrto should account for Vamp's thought process or something, which doesn't really make sense. You can desire a muerrto lynch because of Vamp, sure. You can't ask Muerrto to defend Vamp.

If Vamparific/Muerrto isn't scum, then he's frustrated town. It's not exactly what he said, but how he said it, that makes me suspect the post the mod warned him for.

[The Fonz]

Nah, losing one's temper isn't a scumtell.

I also detect that someone has never replaced DrippingGoofball...

[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.

[The Fonz]

I'm going to address this alone right now, since it's the crux of the matter. We can continue arguing the rest btw.

Is English your first language btw?

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?

No, they're completely and utterly different things. Let me argue from example.

If I say 'John went out to bat without putting his helmet on' it doesn't imply that John batted the whole time without his helmet on, merely that he walked onto the field without it. (Someone may have run out to him).

If I say 'My Dad went for a walk without checking the weather forecast' it DOES NOT MEAN he never checked the forecast. It means that he did not check it before or concurrently with going for a walk. Checking it later that day would not alter the truth of the previous sentence.

If I say 'I bought a car, without considering the effect it would have on my bank balance' it DOES NOT MEAN I

never

considered what it would do to my finances, say, when I got my statement at the end of the month. It meant I did not consider it AT THE TIME.

If I [Read the paper without speaking] it means that i was silent for so long as i was reading. Again, still true if i start speaking the second i finished.

Therefore, if I say

Greasy Spot unvoted without providing an explanation

It means that Greasy Spot did not provide an explanation prior to, or concurrently with, his unvote.

See?

[StrangerCoug]

I also detect that someone has never replaced DrippingGoofball...

How is this relevant?

[The Fonz]

You wouldn't be so hard on a player for not defending his predecessor if you'd replaced her. Ms Goofball's thought process is utterly unique and entirely unfathomable, and anyone trying to explain her actions invariably goes insane.

[Korts]

Okay, this ting-Fonz back-and-forth is just too big a wall of text for me. A very brief skim of it makes me think that this is another one of those almost pointless arguments over a single point, with unintentional misrepresentation that the other gets outraged about, and so on. I'm too tired to read it now, but I promise I will comment on it tomorrow.

[Korts]

You wouldn't be so hard on a player for not defending his predecessor if you'd replaced her. Ms Goofball's thought process is utterly unique and entirely unfathomable, and anyone trying to explain her actions invariably goes insane.

Remind me to replace DGB sometime. I'm interested.

[forbiddanlight]

Remind me to replace DGB sometime. I'm interested.

Same here. I pride myself on my chaotic insanity, and I think I could get in that kinda mood.

Okay, this ting-Fonz back-and-forth is just too big a wall of text for me. A very brief skim of it makes me think that this is another one of those almost pointless arguments over a single point, with unintentional misrepresentation that the other gets outraged about, and so on. I'm too tired to read it now, but I promise I will comment on it tomorrow.

This is pretty much my thinking. I also favor Ting in the argument, but I also kinda skimmed it.

[The Fonz]

This is pretty much my thinking. I also favor Ting in the argument, but I also kinda skimmed it.

We could deduce the second from the first...

[forbiddanlight]

We could deduce the second from the first...

The favoring Ting from agreeing with Korts? Korts didn't take a side I don't think.

[armlx]

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.

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

[The Fonz]

We could deduce the second from the first...

The favoring Ting from agreeing with Korts? Korts didn't take a side I don't think.

No, FL. The second thing in the quote from the first.

[Korts]

What Fonzie means is that he can deduce you skimmed because you favor ting in the argument. Get it? Yeah, he's a tricky little barstud, eh?

[The Fonz]

Yeah, really wasn't that hard.

Then again, I thought the meaning of 'Did X without Y' was obvious and unambiguous...

[forbiddanlight]

What Fonzie means is that he can deduce you skimmed because you favor ting in the argument. Get it? Yeah, he's a tricky little barstud, eh?

Well, he should have said you could deduce the third from the second, since there were 3 things to address in that single quote.

[The Fonz]

I didn't quote anything that said 'I agree with Korts' though, did I?

*HEADDESK*

[forbiddanlight]

I didn't quote anything that said 'I agree with Korts' though, did I?

This is pretty much my thinking.

I also favor Ting in the argument, but I also kinda skimmed it.

And I was quoting Korts.

[The Fonz]

And I cut out the Korts quote, leaving two points...

[roflcopter]

fonz, what do you think of muerrto?

[Muerrto]

For starters, you dismissed roflcopter's case (whatever he claims it is) as "immature pre-pubescent crap" and play the newbie card for Vamparific. When you replace somebody, you are held liable for your replacee's actions, whether you like them or not, and it is still your responsibility to defend them. Most of the people attacking Vamp were unaware of his alignment. You are. In fact, you have exactly the same alignment and role as he did. You must convince us that both Vamp's actions and your own are pro-town. Refusing to defend cases simply because you are not whoever you took over for is scummy.

Um...no. I can't speak for my predecessor's actions and expecting me to do so is ridiculous. Of course I played the newbie card he's NEW and his posts were horrible. I however have his role so I can only say he had no clue what he was doing.

As for Rofl, I did NOT dismiss his case as the above quote. I said his case is not only weak but non-existant. I dismissed his POST about 'waa' etc as the above quote which it is. HUGE difference.

[forbiddanlight]

And I cut out the Korts quote, leaving two points...

It's still implied. But seriously, I have one question. Why the hell are we arguing this anyway?