Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[forbiddanlight]

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 wago

I don't like it myself. I just think it's better to lynch you than a claimed doctor. It's a heiarchy. Hell, I'd support lynching me to save a claimed PR.

[ting =)]

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

[Korts]

At least you could do something insanely scummy so I don't feel so guilty...

[strife220]

More last minute everyone bussing someone who is somewhat likely scum please.

Mod: Exactly what time is deadline? And if there are people who need proddings, please prod. There must be a few.

[orangepenguin]

So people are simply voting ting because they don't want to Korts to be lynched even though they don't think ting is scummy? I get that he is the doctor, so he shouldn't even have votes on him at this point. Don't know why skitzer and Toaster Strudel are still voting them. Have they posted since Korts has claimed?

[Rogueben]

Just reminding everyone that there is the possibility of a deadline extension if a majority of players vote for it.

The deadline is in 25 hours.

[StrangerCoug]

Vote: Deadline extension.

We're really going to need this.

[Korts]

vote: deadline extention

Although I have the nagging feeling we're gonna waste it just like the rest of this day.

[Korts]

EBWOP:

mod:

please prod ToasterStrudel, silence and skitzer, they haven't posted in a while. Maybe a replacement would be better for BM, his last post was circa a month ago...

[Toaster Strudel]

More last minute everyone bussing someone who is somewhat likely scum please.

I am already voting Korts. Why, is there a reason to believe he's town?

[Korts]

Please do not ignore my claim. At least say "I don't buy it", if nothing else.

[The Fonz]

Because of how over-the-top it was. Somebody else said it well earlier - the argument was bordering on personal.

That's precisely why I think 'bus.' Ramping up the animosity levels, without actually adding actual content likely to lead to a lynch, is a very common way of distancing two players in the minds of the town, without actually endangering either. I suggest you read the Fonz-Ryan interplay from [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5704]This game,[/quote] then tell me that scum don't get personal.

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.

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.

Eh?

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

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

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. [/quote]

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.

You have REPEATEDLY LIED about me.

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.)

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

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.

2)He didn't bother to rationalize his actions with regards to IAU. (I can also quote this.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

[The Fonz]

This is the link that was supposed to be in the post above.[/url]

[strife220]

More last minute everyone bussing someone who is somewhat likely scum please.

I am already voting Korts. Why, is there a reason to believe he's town?

There's no need to lynch a claimed doc at this point, even if you think he's lying.

Vote: Deadline extension

If we get it, please lets not waste it. Nobody should use the excuse 'well, I think he's town, but I'll vote him anyway because of deadline'

[The Fonz]

Why not?

It helps catch opportunistic scum.

That said,

vote: deadline extension

Because there are still things worth discussing. I'd like to see what all those saying 'Well, there's a deadline' would do if there was suddenly time for a new wagon.

[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?

[Korts]

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?

Um, the relations are the other way around, if you notice. So what he means is, his own lynch is the best option of the three.

[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.

[forbiddanlight]

Vote Deadline Extension

I'd like to not be forced into a rush lynch.

[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.

[Rogueben]

Since 5 players have voted for the extension and 1 (BM) needs replacing I will grant an extension of 1 week. This makes the deadline the 22nd September.

[forbiddanlight]

Unvote

. I'm not sure where to go at this point. But at least we have another week to decide :S.

[forbiddanlight]

Oh seriously, what the hell people? Are we just going to waste this week too? I guess I'll see what I can do tomorrow, since I'm kinda tired of PBPA today.

[strife220]

Yep this is pretty ridiculous.