Mini 707: Cops and Robbers Mafia (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

Never mind, in reviewing the thread I see that I took some posts out of order.

[Green Crayons]

Shutting down bad theories in a triple post. Awesome. Triple posting.

Vote remaining on Ether, because of possible attempts to make a good image for herself via the use of the word, "townish,"

Not sure how saying a word - much less when that word is townish - makes the speaker look good. Such logic would dictate that simply by saying "rich" would make you so.

even though it's fairly obvious that there is little to be gained by analysis of usernames. In fact, on that note, what tells, if any, do you get from my username, Ether?

Says that there's nothing to be gained by action X, then requests Ether to perform action X, all so he can...

>:O Didn't I just say that I wanted people to vote based on things other than usernames?

...admonish her for acquiescing to his request.

People who do X are bad! Hey, Other Player, please do X for me? Thanks! ...Other Player is bad because they did X!

I realize that the others are voting off of names, but these are only joke votes. Yours is different because it attempts to associate a given name with townieness; the other people simply said something stupid and irreverent.

Her mentioning the word town doesn't sell me that her comment wasn't "stupid and irreverent" or not a joke vote. Not quite sure how you make that leap, would like to hear it (I guess, it seems pretty weak) since it seems to be the only pillar you currently have for keeping your vote on Ether and establishing that it's a serious vote.


Now, for my wild, game-beginning theory.

Mafia traditionally likes third or fourth on a bandwagon. Why not for other trends - maybe this third/fourth place thing sometimes works even on a subconscious level? As has been pointed out, people were "random" voting because of names. The third and fourth to do this were Tisp and Mizzy. Mizzy then turns around to vote for Fuzz who looks like he could easily be an early bandwagon because he's really reaching. Like. Exceptionally so. Beating everyone to the punch so she won't have to be vote three or four? Maybe.

Vote: Mizzy

. Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting. You scallywags.

[Corvuus]

huh. Interesting.

Either I inadvertently started a trend, or people like to vote based on name.

unvote, vote:Green Crayons

For your wild game-beginning theory and because no one has voted for you yet!

... but seriously, I don't like speculation on trends that much. It could be additional evidence for a good case but it is WIFOM otherwise.

Corvuus

[Ether]

I'm not going to like Corvuus.

[Mister L kun]

I'm not convinced by your analysis. I understand the logic in what you're saying, but to me, it seems much too shaky to base a vote on.

[Mister L kun]

EBWOP:

I meant Green Canyon's analysis. I should have refreshed sooner...

[Ether]

I don't

get

what Fuzzyman is thinking, and it bugs me a bit that he was pressuring me to place an obviously harmless vote on him. Why should he care? Aside from that, his campaign to make me jump through stupid hoops seems null.

I highly doubt that the random voting order means anything, but Mizzy's Fuzzyvote does bother me. I'll

vote: Mizzy

while I wonder where the hell my bloodlust got to. Mizzy, were any of the reasons you gave to vote Fuzzyman meant seriously?

Ped, what do you think of the other exchanges so far?

[Mister L kun]

Oh, and Ether:

Maybe you could tell us a little more about why you don't like Corvuus so we have more to work with. "I'm not going to like Corvuus" is a bit vague.

[Ether]

Maybe later. (Actually, I've already taken the effort to spell about half of it out, so later.)

Answer the question.

[Mister L kun]

I'm not sure what other exchanges you mean, but I'll give it a shot.

Fuzzyman's reasoning just seems so insane to me that I can't accept it as a scum tell, so I'm not willing to vote for him because of that. Any vote for him seems like it would be a purely emotional vote. That casts some suspicion on Mizzy, who is either making an emotional vote or is trying to make her vote look like an emotional one. I'm not sure I want to vote on that, though.

I agree with Corvuus's reasoning on Green Crayons's theory. It just seems way too shaky and by his analysis, he could be scum for placing the first vote on Mizzy, so it's just a WIFOM. Honestly, like I said, there is some kind of logic, but that doesn't make it useful.

As for you, Ether, I understand your Mizzy vote, but I'm not sure what you mean about not liking Corvuus.

[Ether]

'Kay.

"No one has voted you yet" is my least favorite classic random vote; a lame attempt to soften the blow.

Voting someone for trying to start the game is stupid. He said himself that the case might be remotely valid. Also, I

agree

with Canary that Mizzy's vote was off, so yeah.

"It could be additional evidence for a good case but it is WIFOM otherwise" is both wishy-washy and displays a lack of understanding as to what WIFOM actually is. (So does what you just said up there: WIFOM is when a town tell might not be valid because the person who made the tell could have realized you'd think that. People tend to just drop the word anywhere and assume that it fits.)

This doesn't actually come off as scummy to me, except possibly if Mizzy is scum. But it's an irritating mindset.

I would like Corvuus to post opinions of Mizzy and Fuzzyman directly, though.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not convinced by your analysis. I understand the logic in what you're saying, but to me, it seems much too shaky to base a vote on.

Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting.

I agree with Corvuus's reasoning on Green Crayons's theory. It just seems way too shaky ... Honestly, like I said, there is some kind of logic, but that doesn't make it useful.

Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting.

I mean, I know I put a disclaimer out there after making the vote that it was made on some pretty soft grounding, but that doesn't mean you should go repeating it. Twice. Like you're trying to knock it down (feel free to do so) with overstating that it's made on shakey basis without making it look like you're trying to knock it down (scummish) with saying that it's logical. Granted you were asked to recite your ideas for Ether, so this is pretty much a null and void point - at least at this time. ...I just like to type.

and by his analysis, he could be scum for placing the first vote on Mizzy, so it's just a WIFOM.

Uh, only if you took that one aspect of my critque (putting a first vote on someone) in a vacuum void of any context and without the other aspects of my reasons for voting her. Other than that, my own vote falls exactly into my analysis. So, if you put some pretty big blinders on I suppose you're right.

I'm not sure what you mean about not liking Corvuus.

-snip-
Oh, Ether posted while I was previewing my post. She had actual reasons other than much internet <3'in. My theory was shot down!

[Ether]

Oh, Ether posted while I was previewing my post. She had actual reasons other than much internet <3'in. My theory was shot down!

Shit, I forgot that part. Voting Canary isn't cool, guys.

[charter]

The Everyone's Voting Votecount

Vote Count:

q21 - 1 (crywolf20084)
Corvuus - 1 (Tisp)

Mizzy - 3 (Simpor, Green Crayons, Ether)

Simpor - 1 (Aceagain)
Mister Lolipedo-kun - 1 (q21)
Ether - 1 (Fuzzyman)
Aceagain - 1 (Mister Lolipedo-kun)
Fuzzyman - 1 (Mizzy)
Green Crayons - 1 (Corvuus)

Not Voting: (0)

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, were any of the reasons you gave to vote Fuzzyman meant seriously?

Not the ones I posted, no. But I do have real reasons:

His #16 which came off to me as trying to actively find a way to end random voting as early as possible. Ending the random phase in and of itself isn't scummy but I find the way he did it to be scummy. He found the first remotely questionable thing (which was a huge stretch and taking things seriously that probably shouldn't have been) and used that as his excuse.

His #18 really bothers me. Firstly, it seems that he has no clue about random voting and why it's useful and then tries to use his flawed understanding as reasoning. Secondly he uses a "vote for me" play which is a terrible thing to do this early in the game, or at all in my opinion. He said to vote for him (even if the reason why didn't match up) and so I did.

[Mizzy]

Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she called out my flimsy vote, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks.

[Fuzzyman]

Shutting down bad theories in a triple post. Awesome. Triple posting.

Vote remaining on Ether, because of possible attempts to make a good image for herself via the use of the word, "townish,"

Not sure how saying a word - much less when that word is townish - makes the speaker look good. Such logic would dictate that simply by saying "rich" would make you so.

Semi-strawman here. The point that I was trying to get across was more that Ether could have been trying to attach substance onto a jokevote.

even though it's fairly obvious that there is little to be gained by analysis of usernames. In fact, on that note, what tells, if any, do you get from my username, Ether?

Says that there's nothing to be gained by action X, then requests Ether to perform action X, all so he can...

... this one was more asked out of curiosity, and trying to spur discussion.

>:O Didn't I just say that I wanted people to vote based on things other than usernames?

...admonish her for acquiescing to his request.

No, I wasn't yapping at her for telling me that "Fuzzyman" had a town vibe, but rather that if it wasn't my name, she would be voting for me.

People who do X are bad! Hey, Other Player, please do X for me? Thanks! ...Other Player is bad because they did X!

I realize that the others are voting off of names, but these are only joke votes. Yours is different because it attempts to associate a given name with townieness; the other people simply said something stupid and irreverent.

Her mentioning the word town doesn't sell me that her comment wasn't "stupid and irreverent" or not a joke vote. Not quite sure how you make that leap, would like to hear it (I guess, it seems pretty weak) since it seems to be the only pillar you currently have for keeping your vote on Ether and establishing that it's a serious vote.
[/quote] I dunno. Frankly, I've always felt that once you throw around adjectives like that, the person speaking has a goal. I was probably wrong.

Mizzy: My dictionary lists "insolent" as "contempuously rude". At what point did I fit this description? And what bearing does it have on the likelyhood of me being a robber?

[Fuzzyman]

Oh, and Ether, I'm not going to like Corvuus either.

[Mizzy]

Her mentioning the word town doesn't sell me that her comment wasn't "stupid and irreverent" or not a joke vote. Not quite sure how you make that leap, would like to hear it (I guess, it seems pretty weak) since it seems to be the only pillar you currently have for keeping your vote on Ether and establishing that it's a serious vote.

I dunno. Frankly, I've always felt that once you throw around adjectives like that, the person speaking has a goal. I was probably wrong.

Mizzy: My dictionary lists "insolent" as "contempuously rude". At what point did I fit this description? And what bearing does it have on the likelyhood of me being a robber?[/quote]

Ether tends to act that way regardless of alignment. By that, I mean she uses adjectives like "insolent." She's just that way. And her goal, I'm sure, is to win, no matter what side she's on. All of us should have the same goal, which means that everyone's actions in this game can safely be assumed to be for the purpose of meeting that goal.

I don't feel that you are scummy based on anything Ether has said or done, and I don't feel that she is town because of anything you have said or done. The two opinions are completely unrelated. I feel you are scummy because of reasons I already gave.

You have not responded to all of my case points, either. I feel that the second paragraph of my #39 is the stronger set of points and I am surprised you have completely left out any answer to those.

[Green Crayons]

We need to get these quotes-within-quotes tag issues fixed. It's bothersome.

Ending the random phase in and of itself isn't scummy but I find the way he did it to be scummy. He found the first remotely questionable thing (which was a huge stretch and taking things seriously that probably shouldn't have been) and used that as his excuse.

Using something remotely questionable as an excuse to step away from entirely random voting isn't a bad thing - though that seems to be your sentiment here. It isn't what a lynch should be based off of, by and stretch of the imagination, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. For example, his bad logic and questionable reasoning have supplied us with plenty of quasi-useful posts that are moving us away from random voting. I would like to see your argument as to why stretched logic to move the discussion towards something productive isn't as good as randomness on page one.

Firstly, it seems that he has no clue about random voting and why it's useful and then tries to use his flawed understanding as reasoning.

Rereading post 18 readily displays his apparent disdain for random voting, but I don't see how you're pulling out from that post that he doesn't have a clue about beginning game random votes. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you would flush out more your contention that he uses this "misunderstanding" of random voting as reasoning. What misunderstanding? Reasoning for what? As far as I can tell, he's keeping his vote on Ether not because she was random voting (so any misunderstanding he may have re: randomness doesn't come into play), but because she was allegedly attempting to slip buzzwords into her rhetoric to make her look like town.

Secondly he uses a "vote for me" play which is a terrible thing to do this early in the game, or at all in my opinion.

I agree with this point, to an extent. I'm always suspicious of "vote for me" tag lines or any incarnation of the sentiment/tactic. However, taken in context it looks like he was trying to tell Ether (specifically) that she should vote him if she has an actual reason, not just because of random name crap. It falls in line with the rest of his posts and what apparently is an extreme dislike of random voting.

He said to vote for him (even if the reason why didn't match up) and so I did.

Admitting to turning a blind eye to circumstance, and willfully taking the snippet of his post out of its context - just so you could put a vote on him. Odd.

Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she called out my flimsy vote, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks.

Does this strike anyone else as a cousin to the "congratulating the doctor" tell? A "congratulating the successful scumhunter?" Also, it just seems weird that she would immediately undercut her previous post by stating her vote was flimsy in the first place.

Semi-strawman here. The point that I was trying to get across was more that Ether could have been trying to attach substance onto a jokevote.

Hardly a strawman, but while I would love to argue semantics (no, really, I would), I don't think the paragraphs devoted to this tangent would really help anyone. I get that you were saying Ether was secretly making a non-substance post with subliminal substance (and pro-town substance at that) messages hidden in the jargon used. I just don't understand how you have convinced yourself her actions actually live up to your accusations.

No, I wasn't yapping at her for telling me that "Fuzzyman" had a town vibe, but rather that if it wasn't my name, she would be voting for me.

If it wasn't for your name, she would have been voting you "for your insolence." You didn't want her to not joke vote you because a random/joke reason to not vote you got in the way? I'm sure there's something to be said about forests and trees right about now.

[Mizzy]

Green Crayons:

I'm going to answer your questions but I want to ask - why are you asking these and not allowing him to do so? Curiosity? If you wanted the answers, you could have instead pointed him out to ask these and not done so yourself, which would have been a lot more beneficial, I think.

Using something remotely questionable as an excuse to step away from entirely random voting isn't a bad thing - though that seems to be your sentiment here. It isn't what a lynch should be based off of, by and stretch of the imagination, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. For example, his bad logic and questionable reasoning have supplied us with plenty of quasi-useful posts that are moving us away from random voting. I would like to see your argument as to why stretched logic to move the discussion towards something productive isn't as good as randomness on page one.

Actually, I don't mind when one person pulls away from random voting, or even a few, for valid reasons, but the way he did it was a pretty big distraction. I don't feel that his reasons for doing so were even remotely justified. Taking something obviously meant to be a joke an trying to make a big deal out of it isn't a good reason at all. It's like he took the first thing even remotely possible to finger someone for and went with it, whether it be helpful or not. It also had the air of being defensive, also unhelpful.

Rereading post 18 readily displays his apparent disdain for random voting, but I don't see how you're pulling out from that post that he doesn't have a clue about beginning game random votes. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you would flush out more your contention that he uses this "misunderstanding" of random voting as reasoning. What misunderstanding? Reasoning for what? As far as I can tell, he's keeping his vote on Ether not because she was random voting (so any misunderstanding he may have re: randomness doesn't come into play), but because she was allegedly attempting to slip buzzwords into her rhetoric to make her look like town.

What he said:

>:O Didn't I just say that I wanted people to vote based on things other than usernames? Really, it's even worse than random voting, since we all probably picked a name when we joined solely for the purpose of manipulation. If you would be voting for me in a world where everybody's username is a random ten-numeral string, then vote for me now.

Random voting is useful because it isn't random (unless you use some sort of dice roll or randomizing algorithm to do so.) We get information from the people we pick to vote for and the bullshit (or not) reasons for doing so. It's psychology. Any information we get is integral and should be valued, if taken with a grain of salt. That's why I think he doesn't understand random voting; because he doesn't really value the results.

We will ALL use language that denotes us as being townies and some of us, like Ether, will use sarcasm and jokes in their posting. It seems silly to me to dwell on it so soon when she hasn't done it very much. It would have been far better to wait for more evidence before bringing it up and possibly ruining the chance for more evidence, if there was to be any at all.

Most importantly, I feel that Fuzzy is keeping his vote on Ether because he didn't like the word "insolence." I think he has

emotional reasons

for it, i.e. being defensive, and not valid logic.

I agree with this point, to an extent. I'm always suspicious of "vote for me" tag lines or any incarnation of the sentiment/tactic. However, taken in context it looks like he was trying to tell Ether (specifically) that she should vote him if she has an actual reason, not just because of random name crap. It falls in line with the rest of his posts and what apparently is an extreme dislike of random voting.

It's also rather hypocritical of him in my view. He is voting Ether because of her "townie" rhetoric but yet he himself uses a gambit often used to make the speaker appear more town.

Admitting to turning a blind eye to circumstance, and willfully taking the snippet of his post out of its context - just so you could put a vote on him. Odd.

I was going to vote him anyway, it might as well have some shitty reasons as well as some good ones. I mean, hell, Fuzzy shouldn't be allowed to be the only one who votes for craplogic.

Does this strike anyone else as a cousin to the "congratulating the doctor" tell? A "congratulating the successful scumhunter?" Also, it just seems weird that she would immediately undercut her previous post by stating her vote was flimsy in the first place.

Does this strike anyone else as a player asking for permission to vote or to accuse from the rest of town to justify his actions in case he is wrong?

[crywolf20084]

Clearly this is no longer random so,

unvote

.

[Mizzy]

Actually, after having thought about it for a bit more, Green Crayon's question strikes me as worse than it did originally. The whole breakdown of his question is just plain horrible.

Does this strike anyone else as a cousin to the "congratulating the doctor" tell? A "congratulating the successful scumhunter?" Also, it just seems weird that she would immediately undercut her previous post by stating her vote was flimsy in the first place.

It's a charismatic plea for anyone who will listen that provides its own answer. It, in short, is a leading question. It calls upon the all-poweful "hey look, a scumtell!" which is just plain bullshit because scumtells rarely work. It also contains manipulation of what I have said to fit his own thoughts/needs and is really a call to action and a request for permission and justification all in one.

No, my vote wasn't flimsy...one reason for my vote was flimsy but the rest of the reasons for the vote are sound.

Major FoS: Green Crayons

for asking questions that weren't his responsibility to ask and in doing so indirectly protecting Fuzz, giving Fuzz easy-outs by arguing my attacks on him for him, manipulating what I said, and in the span of 3 sentences, cramming in some of the scummiest play I've seen in ages.

Any more BS from you and I'll be moving my vote.

I still expect to see some responses from Fuzzy about what I have said because I am not about to let Green do all his fighting for him.

[Ether]

Was not previously aware that there was an issue with quote pyramids; I've never been affected. I like my Mizvote. Hmm hmm.

Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she called out my flimsy vote, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks.

I agree with Canary; this is bizarre. What would you

expect

me to do as scum?

His #16 which came off to me as trying to actively find a way to end random voting as early as possible. Ending the random phase in and of itself isn't scummy but I find the way he did it to be scummy. He found the first remotely questionable thing (which was a huge stretch and taking things seriously that probably shouldn't have been) and used that as his excuse.

His #18 really bothers me. Firstly, it seems that he has no clue about random voting and why it's useful and then tries to use his flawed understanding as reasoning. Secondly he uses a "vote for me" play which is a terrible thing to do this early in the game, or at all in my opinion. He said to vote for him (even if the reason why didn't match up) and so I did.

Meh. I think the "townish" hypothesis is null, personally, and I don't understand why you think his zeal about random voting is actually

scummy

. (I used to be like that. Heh.) I don't particularly like that he wanted to look enthusiastic about getting voted at a point where the stakes were close to zero anyway, no, but it still seems kinda minor.

I dunno. Frankly, I've always felt that once you throw around adjectives like that, the person speaking has a goal. I was probably wrong.

I've never heard that before, but I rarely come under much pressure, so I could be convinced that I'm subconsciously doing something right.

Ether tends to act that way regardless of alignment. By that, I mean she uses adjectives like "insolent." She's just that way. And her goal, I'm sure, is to win, no matter what side she's on. All of us should have the same goal, which means that everyone's actions in this game can safely be assumed to be for the purpose of meeting that goal.

I am not sure what it is you just said.

Crywolf. Who's scum?

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons: I'm going to answer your questions but I want to ask - why are you asking these and not allowing him to do so? Curiosity? If you wanted the answers, you could have instead pointed him out to ask these and not done so yourself, which would have been a lot more beneficial, I think.

...Uhm, because he can't read my mind and the only way I could have "pointed him out" to ask my questions would be to state them. Openly. In the thread. So he could, what? Repeat word for word what I just posted, but directed at you instead of himself?

This isn't a two person conversation, it involves all twelve of us. I don't see how hoping he would read my mind or become my parrot could be more beneficial. Your post leads me to believe that either you were assuming we could somehow speak out-of-thread (a potential scum slip up) because nobody truly makes posts based off of the belief of mind reading, or that I could somehow manipulate the guy from over the internet to make exactly the right points and ask exactly the right questions... which doesn't seem to be pro-town. At all.

For the record, I'm not defending him or his actions. I think his logic is broken and he should move on to greener pastures. However, I have (semi-)serious issues with what you're putting out there as sound reasoning and so that's why I'm speaking up.

Actually, I don't mind when one person pulls away from random voting, or even a few, for valid reasons, but the way he did it was a pretty big distraction.

A big distraction. From random voting. The horror. It's not like the random stage was exactly going anywhere. If there are any small nuggets of wisdom to find, they're preserved for everyone to see. If Fuzz didn't speak up, we could potentially still be discussing why names are or are not indicators of scumbags and which ones are more so than others. Darn it all to heck, why aren't we still in that stage?

I don't feel that his reasons for doing so were even remotely justified. Taking something obviously meant to be a joke an trying to make a big deal out of it isn't a good reason at all. It's like he took the first thing even remotely possible to finger someone for and went with it, whether it be helpful or not. It also had the air of being defensive, also unhelpful.

This is the only valid point you have seem to have: his logic was unsound. Fair enough, I agree with you on that point. Making it a big deal? It wasn't like he was screaming bloody murder at the top of his lungs, just simply trying to find something other than randomness for a reason to vote. You seem to be the one who is blowing things out of proportion. You also pad this one point with a lot of crap, such as:

Random voting is useful because it isn't random (unless you use some sort of dice roll or randomizing algorithm to do so.) We get information from the people we pick to vote for and the bullshit (or not) reasons for doing so. It's psychology. Any information we get is integral and should be valued, if taken with a grain of salt. That's why I think he doesn't understand random voting; because he doesn't really value the results.

You're putting the random voting stage on such a high pedestal ("we get info," "any info we get is integral and should be valued," he misunderstands the inherent "value" of the random stage) relative to the actual stage (a time when you can pretty much make any thing to look how you want it and is good - at best - for icing on the cake in later stages in the game when making a case against a player), but then also seem to undercut your own praise by admitting just how craptastic the stage really is - it should be "taken with a grain of salt." Grains of salt, joke voting, all around silly behavior: the tried-and-true characteristics of a random stage. Are there grains of salt? Sure. Are there minefields of meatier stuff in post-random stage? Yes. Your overvaluation of the random stage stinks. Your dedication to not moving away from the random stage - which Fuzz managed to do for us, regardless of the craptastic logic he used to do so - and your insistent decrying of Fuzz for doing so stinks even more.

I was going to vote him anyway, it might as well have some shitty reasons as well as some good ones.

So you were predisposed to voting him anyways, prior to any reasons - good or bad - whatsoever?

I mean, hell, Fuzzy shouldn't be allowed to be the only one who votes for craplogic.

The problem isn't so much that you have "crappy" reasons alongside "good" reasons to vote for Fuzz (at least as classified by yourself). It's that you originally voted him because of crappy reasons. Then, when you were prodded and with no new material to mine from you came up with "good"/better reasons. That's what strikes me as so odd, and that's why I brought it to everyone else's attention.

It's a charismatic plea for anyone who will listen that provides its own answer. It, in short, is a leading question.

It's charistmatic because... you say so? Because I'm just that affable? And, yes, it's a leading question but, really, boo hoo. Leading questions aren't inherently evil. It leads any other player to answer yes or no to a question that I'm asking myself. I'm not trying to trick people into seeing the parallel - they either do, or they don't.

It calls upon the all-poweful "hey look, a scumtell!" which is just plain bullshit because scumtells rarely work.

Do you break a sweat digging that hole for yourself? "Scumtells are BS because they are the antithesis of why they are scumtells!" Scumtells exist because they are the general rule, e.g. usually work. Not rarely. Commence the breakdown of logic!

It also contains manipulation of what I have said to fit his own thoughts/needs

Funny you should say this but you don't actually explain what you meant by what you said. You're not defending against the argument, you're not explaining how it is that I'm manipulating your words, you're just calling me a manipulator (ironic, since you were pretty much suggesting in your previous post that I should be manipulating Fuzz to get what I want) and hoping that the ad Hominem works.

and is really a call to action and a request for permission and justification all in one.

A call to action? If another player sees the parallel, then yes, they should be put into action to vote. A request for permission? Hardly. I'm already voting you. A justification? Heh. Usually justification for a vote is a

good

thing. You know, they usually occur outside of the random stage.

No, my vote wasn't flimsy...one reason for my vote was flimsy but the rest of the reasons for the vote are sound.

What you originally said (my emphasis): "Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she

called out my flimsy vote

, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks." You originally called your whole vote flimsy. Stop trying to rewrite what you said.

Major FoS: Green Crayons for asking questions that weren't his responsibility to ask and in doing so indirectly protecting Fuzz, giving Fuzz easy-outs by arguing my attacks on him for him, manipulating what I said, and in the span of 3 sentences, cramming in some of the scummiest play I've seen in ages.

Heh. I think there's something to be said about pots and kettles at this point. Let's get this straight: Assuming everything you just said about me is true (which it isn't), you're still voting for Fuzz because he made a leap in logic to move the game away from the random voting stage instead of me because...? Talk about requesting permission to vote.

As for your points, they're just scarey. One by one:

for asking questions that weren't his responsibility to ask

Uh, it's the responsibility of every townsperson to ask any and all questions that come to their mind. Your policy dictates that all townspeople should shut up and cross their fingers someone else speaks their mind for them.

in doing so indirectly protecting Fuzz

Protecting Fuzz only from the crap that you spout. I've already voiced my criticism towards Fuzz, so your insinuation that I'm hoping a blind eye will pass over Fuzz is DOA.

giving Fuzz easy-outs by arguing my attacks on him for him

I was noting your crappy logic. Sorry, involuntary craplogic attacking has been a problem I have been coping with for a long time. There are no easy outs against genuine points (of which you had one, but which you are blowing out of proportion and padding with crap).

manipulating what I said

Still failing to explain how I was manipulating, what original meaning I'm somehow obfusticating all while managing to attack me instead of the argument.

and in the span of 3 sentences, cramming in some of the scummiest play I've seen in ages.

Subjective hogwash. Who is trying to make the charismatic appeal, again?


Summary: Spouts craplogic to pad her one decent point, hates scumtells because good signs that you're on the path to catching scum is "bullshit," attacks players for actions that she's committing, uses logical fallicies instead of reasonable arguments and fudges the history of what she has said. Add that to my previous reasons for my vote and I'm happy to say I'm quite content with it at the moment.


I just previewed my post and saw that Ether has posted. I'm not going to read that post - if there's anything I feel like adding/commenting/arguing with, I'll do so later. I'm sure you all have plenty of text to make those eyes bleed as it is.