Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mykonian]

mod, you missed my vote on Springlullaby

but it doesn't matter:

unvote vote SpyreX

See the previous post why. Your post simply didn't make any sense to me, and still you manage to say it is the case against Ecto for you.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 124

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 2 (vollkan, Spyrex)
vollkan - 1 (springlullaby)

SpyreX - 3 (mykonian, mrfixij, Ectomancer)

mrfixij - 0 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (orangepenguin, Mana_Ku

Juls

, TDC)

If I get no response from Mana_Ku within 24 hours, I will be forced to find a replacement. It's better now than too late in the game.

[SpyreX]

Could you explain to me what the big point is here? It seems to come back a few times, but I don't see the relevance to a scum player.

After a whole post of "I am right and you are not", Spyrex votes, warning us not to call it OMGUS.

Why not? The whole post screams "OMG ECTO YOU SUCK". Why can't we scream back? Your attack on Ecto wasn't bad after your play, but you don't want to say, that all you posted there proved that Ecto is scum?

The relevance is in one of the main points of my overall problem with Ecto and his method of attack on Volk - Ecto said that there was no "strong" connotations and my rebuttal is the use of "the enemy"

before discussion started

definitely sets a tone for the attacks.

As for the OMGUS business - I've been pretty clear with my issues with Ecto far before he voted for me. I just wanted to see if anyone said it.

So, again, another vote. Dare I ask why this time? Because you think my case on Ecto is OMGUS?

[mykonian]

I think it is wrong. I have seen points going from shifting the others point, to theory discussion what is gut. Kinda agreeing with each other, but using different words so there is a little difference. To your "tone of the attacks". To me the last was only an the common " scum like confusion" but in other words.

You are going after Ecto, seemingly only because he opposes some of your idea's. I think that is wrong, even if you thought you didn't do it.

In my second completed game, a newby had a big discussion day one with an other player. He countinued to find that player scummy, and as you well know, when you want to find something scummy about a player, you are going to find it. It lost town the game.

[SpyreX]

I think it is wrong. I have seen points going from shifting the others point, to theory discussion what is gut. Kinda agreeing with each other, but using different words so there is a little difference. To your "tone of the attacks". To me the last was only an the common " scum like confusion" but in other words.

You are going after Ecto, seemingly only because he opposes some of your idea's. I think that is wrong, even if you thought you didn't do it.

In my second completed game, a newby had a big discussion day one with an other player. He countinued to find that player scummy, and as you well know, when you want to find something scummy about a player, you are going to find it. It lost town the game.

I am not going after Ecto because he's opposing my ideas. I'm going after Ecto because I found his methodology to be suspicious in attacking Volk. This was only further increased when he started to attack me.

So, two players got into a discussion in a different game and one found the other scummy and that lost the town the game? Dare I ask what relevance that has to any of this. I'm not attacking him because of the discussion - I'm attacking him because again the methods are suspicious.

Again, I'm -really- not sure why this is so hard to get out, but what above makes it scummy?

[mykonian]

It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

[SpyreX]

Well, wait a sec.

A difference in opinion doesn't bother me. However, do you find it scummy? If not, although I'm not in immediate danger of a lynch, why would you push it to the head of the pack?

Again, on all three of you voting for me, I'd like the concrete, simple explanations of why.

[Ectomancer]

I dont even want to try and do the word count that explained why already, but I'll give you a short summary.

I questioned your motivations for your actions. I pressed on you (when Vollkan wasn't in the way defending you) and it took 4-5 pages for you to finally spit out that your issue was a turn of phrase from my 2nd post. (unmentioned before then except a vague "You've been aggressive" or "you attacked him strongly") This is something that I could have explained to you on my 3rd post. No, instead you let it ride, or didnt even notice it back then, but found it when you needed a case? Then ignore Vollkan's responses in all of your references back to me. You then take only my posts to try to back up your case.
Do you know what context is? The context of his posts is what garnered the aggressive talk, not the self-vote.

Now, you've been talking about this 'strongly' forever, but only when hard pressed can you come up with something solid to be addressed. Then, rather than concede there could possibly be different interpretations of a phrase used on page 1, you forge on stubbornly with your accusations.
All of this smacks of someone who established a prejudice, and has gone about it for so long now, that you were forced to go back and cling to whatever you can so that you can hope to have an actual case. Revisionist history is what they call it I believe.

Hmm, wasnt so short after all.

[SpyreX]

Again, you are harping on my one point and not paying attention to the repeated instances I quoted of your specific actions I took umbrage to.

YES I KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS THANK YOU HOWEVER WHEN I AM REFERRING TO HOW YOU ARE PLAYING I DONT CARE ONE WHIT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID.

You came out with a hard-line case on him being scum with an amazing amount of aggression that quickly evaporated.

Again you are suckling on the teat of 'strongly' when everything I've said in regards to that shows why I, in fact, believe it was strong and still do.

And yes, when in conjunction with everything else I am going to 'stubbornly' forge on with the fact your first statement has an obvious interpretation. If it was just that I would have dropped it. If it was just you leaping out in that discussion with Volk I may have dropped it. If you just randomly switched a hard-stance I may have dropped it. All three together. WOO.

But, yes, this is an answer. That's something.

[orangepenguin]

Vote: ecto

.

He's pushing a pretty weak case against Spyrex, mostly based on craplogic, and I don't like the case at all.

[Ectomancer]

Thanks for your detailed input orangepenguin. Absolutely insightful.

[orangepenguin]

Thanks, I try my best.

vollkan and Spyrex have already presented there own cases, but I am sure you wouldn't mind another, would you?

[orangepenguin]

Ectomancer - Quick PBPA

Post 0 - Confirms
Post 1 - Responds to vollkans self-vote.
Post 2 - More about the self-vote, after the mod says that self-votes don't count towards a lynch if it's L-1
Post 3 - Disagrees with vollkan about self-voting
Post 4 - Big long post about long posts and how the discussion has been good..
Post 5 - Talks about Spyrex's response to the self-vote, and comments on Juls quitting and being repalced.
Post 6 - Replies to volkkan and spy, and also talks about "pushing for pushing's sake"
Post 7 - Long post, basically saying vollkan can "go by gut" but don't expect others to follow and how they disagree.
Post 8 - Talk about an "onus" (whatever that is) and questions for vollkan.
Post 9 - Response to spyrex saying that people go on gut, but that their cases are flawed and stuff
Post 10 - Post telling more people to contribute and pick a side.
Post 11 - Says that the discussion regarding the self-vote is important and that there is a lot of things to look at (in response to me saying that it was)
Post 12 - He wanted to vollkan to answer their own question they asked
Post 13 - Talks about how debate are great to look at personalities, and that how people react say a lot about them.
Post 14 - His first vote of the game on Spyrex. He responds to a bunch of quotes also prior to that.
Post 15 - Once again responding to the self-vote debacle/game theory. He says that it belongs in Mafia Discussion, not here. I agree.
Post 16 - More about him disagreeing with spy and vollkan about game theory.
Post 17 - And some more.
Post 18 - Responds to vollkan about ecto "parroting" his question in post 12
Post 19 - Gives a short summary why he is voting Spyrex.
Post 20 - Sarcastic response to my vote on him

It's a pretty quick analysis. Some of the larger posts were summed up quite a bit though, but you're my biggest suspect at this point, moreso than Spyrex, who is tied with you.[/spoiler]

[orangepenguin]

That really wasn't a case, FYI. I didn't really do the whole "show scummy stuff with quotes supporting it" dealio, so don't count that as a case.

[Ectomancer]

That really wasn't a case, FYI. I didn't really do the whole "show scummy stuff with quotes supporting it" dealio, so don't count that as a case.

Glad you said it so I didn't need to.

Alright, rather than go through each section, I'll hit a couple and let everyone else pull up my posts, and then look at your post by post summary.

You may have been trying to sum up those posts in a quick 1 line, but in several of those posts, there was a HECK of a lot more going on than you chose to summarize, most of it more important than what you chose to put in a summary (IMO), plus a quick glance shows some of it to be just plain wrong.

Let's look at #7 for example:

Post 7 - Long post, basically saying vollkan can "go by gut" but don't expect others to follow and how they disagree.

That's your summary, but look at the actual post:
You crunched several points into "long post".
That final paragraph wasn't a summary of the entire post.
From what you did summarize though, you didnt get it right:
It doesnt tell Vollkan that he can go by gut.
It says that

other players

have a right to play by their gut.
It doesnt say that other players dont have to follow Vollkan's gut, it says they dont have to follow his rules of "prove it".
That's quite a different point than your summary makes it out to be.

We see things quite differently Vollkan, and I see you trying to use a time loop to use my later judgement of your defense to criticize my early statements. You see a problem with me being convinced by your arguements? Why do you argue if you dont expect to be able to sway players to your line of reasoning.
Asking you to justify your vote is based upon exactly the same reasoning as your self-vote in the first place. Generating discussion. You dont own a monopoly on that tactic you know.
By rhetorically asking yourself why you placed that vote, you

did

differentiate yourself from the other random votes. It's not a 'weak' statement. I'm right, your wrong.
Whether you think pressure voting is stupid is as irrelevant as my opinion that self-voting is stupid. K?
There is no strawman. I've found that scum tend to fall into that "you cant prove your case, so you cant vote me attitude'. That's called experience. You can argue with the position if you like, but my experience tells me Im right.

Players can play by gut. They dont have to follow your "prove it!" gameplay if they dont wish to. You can vote them if you like, but you cant

make

them do anything. This is also not a strawman, as it directly contradicts your 'groundrules' that

you

posted.

Going to work.

Thanks Mana_Ku, Im doing ok, trying to take it easy

Quick look at another:

Post 9 - Response to spyrex saying that people go on gut, but that their cases are flawed and stuff

*sigh*

Look at the post.

It is about the defender being responsible for pointing out to the town the flaws in an argument against them. It is in direct response to Vollkan's and Spyrex addon statement that you dont have to defend against a case that "isnt real". It addressed Vollkan's "onus is on the prosecutor" that you allude to in summary 8 as my phrase when it originated with Vollkan.
It is a post laying out the responsibility of town players. It does not summarize into "people can go on gut, but their cases are flawed and stuff"

Another counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.

By saying the onus is on the prosecutor, isn't it being implied that one only has to defend themselves from an

actual

case (the he got you part) - there is no real defense from attacks that are unfounded in general. So, of course the onus is on having a real case versus just needle attacks.

No. The accused has got to explain

why

it is isn't an actual case if he

believes

it isn't. Others may have a different opinion, it's up to the defender to demonstrate why it isn't an actual case. It's the defenders job to make sure town understands the problem with the attack, or defend against the case if there is one.
Without it, you allow the player to ignore what they want on the grounds of "it isn't actually a case" without having to actually explain why. That player also runs the risk of having ignorant town (Vollkan likes the name stupid) assume that the attack was a valid one since it went unanswered. Whether one would appreciate the fact or not, people do play this game on their gut feelings about a player. You either tear apart the argument, or defend against it, not let it stand flawed and unexposed.

Brevity has its place, but it is useless if it gets the summary wrong, or leaves out important points.

Thanks for the PbPa. I dont think it supports your vote though. In fact, looking at your summaries vs what is in my posts, I would say you might want to re-examine the content and reconsider some of your summaries. If your vote was based upon them, it is standing on unsound ground.

[TDC]

Ecto: Do you think he's scummy for that pbpa summary?
I mean it doesn't support his vote reason (you pushing crap logic) at all, and I think if he was going to fudge a pbpa then it would've made sense to fudge it in a way that supports his vote?

---

orangepengiun: I guess you'll not come around quoting him a bit. Where is the craplogic?

---

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I don't know.. do long exchanges like this ever

not

lead to the participants voting for each other?

---

I fear I really need to meta some of you to take something out of this..

[Ectomancer]

[quote="TDC"]Ecto: Do you think he's scummy for that pbpa summary?
I mean it doesn't support his vote reason (you pushing crap logic) at all, and I think if he was going to fudge a pbpa then it would've made sense to fudge it in a way that supports his vote?quote]

No, I think that he just botched the job of it. A pbpa is only useful if it actually reflects/summates the actual events. I can tell from reading it that he got at least a few of his interpretations entirely wrong. It looks like a skim job, but I cant entirely blame him for that due to the length of the posts that have been made.
What I'd like is for him to take what errors I pointed out, go back and apply it to the summary he made, and then see if he still arrives at a conclusion that says "Lynch Ectomancer".

[mykonian]

[quote="TDC"

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I don't know.. do long exchanges like this ever

not

lead to the participants voting for each other?[/quote]

Vollkan says your statement is wrong, I am afraid it is happening here, but I don't have the experience to tell if it is always the fact. I would love to have the discussion shift to "who is scum" in stead of theory. It really doesn't help.

[Mana_Ku]

Damn, I got a bit behind

You're fine..

for now

. Oo! That might be a threat!

[ortolan]

It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I have to agree with this to a large extent.

In this discussion it's hard to distinguish an argumentative nature from excessive aggression (and even excessive aggression isn't a guarantee of scuminness).

Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.

So I'm going to

Vote: Ectomancer

which puts him at L-2. I wouldn't suggest anyone else votes for him without providing (very) strong justification at this point.

Also to springlullaby: your last post (114) still does not explain why you self-voted then voted for vollkan for doing the same.

[springlullaby]

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

I'm on page 4 of my reread, and have actually only skimmed the last page, will get to it eventually, but I feel pretty good about my current vote.

[mrfixij]

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

[ortolan]

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

Just to clarify so I understand: by this you mean keeping my vote on you past the joke phase and then changing my vote to Ectomancer? If so why do both of these votes suck exactly? I don't follow.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.]

I already had that question addressed to you at the end of my post, and in the process of writing it I decided to change from FoSing Ectomancer to voting for him. Just because I decided there was enough of a case against him to vote for him doesn't mean I should deliberately omit what I wanted to ask you from my post. Would you prefer if I'd made another post especially for you?

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

What's there not to understand about my vote against Ectomancer? I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX. And when you say I agree with SpyreX and OP, yes I think orangepenguin's summary shows Ectomancer's case against vollkan was relatively insubstantial but quite keenly pursued. Also the only reason I mentioned the L-2 was that I was effectively lynched in another game for putting someone on L-1. I feel if I draw attention to exactly how many votes are on someone (because sometimes the vote counts by the admin can be wrong) then this prevents people putting on the L-1 then lynching vote and being able to claim they were mistaken about the number of votes. It was as much for my own benefit as anyone else's, noting just how close to a lynch we were.

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.

[orangepenguin]

ort, you never even unvoted. So your vote is still on spring, FYI.

[mrfixij]

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.

I disrespectfully disagree. Your post gave the impression that you had no clue what was going on, was overly ambiguous, and drew a vote from springlullaby BECAUSE of that. Very similar to posting a list of all players with a brief summary of your thoughts on each one, you posted a respectably sized post with absolutely no content, making it seem like you're paying attention when really you're not. I'm willing to pass it off as a mistake, mostly because I think my vote on SpyreX is more justified and voting for you would be based on policy alone. However, don't assume that your post was good because it made spring vote for you.

[ortolan]

Oops, sorry.

Unvote.

Vote: Ectomancer

mrfixij, as I have already said, my post was intended to express that I have ultimately, unfortunately, gleaned little from the extensive and verbose theory discussion about who is scum in this particular game. If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

And what does "policy" in this context mean anyhow? You mean you have a policy of voting for those who you feel makes contentless posts? I didn't say my post was objectively "good", however I believe it expressed what I wanted it to express.