Crackers! Mafia -- Game Over. See page 50

[Adel]

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

votecount as of post 449

_{with 13 alive, 7 will lynch before deadline}

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

¬curiouskarmadog:

4

:roflcopter, Yosarian2, DrippingGoofball, populartajo
Korts:

4

:Battle Mage, Elmo, destructor, Raging Rabbit
Battle Mage:

2

:SensFan, Korts
Yosarian2:

2

:Kison, vollkan
DrippingGoofball:

1

:curiouskarmadog

No Lynch:

none

not voting:

none

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

Day 1's deadline is December 6th at 16:40(UTC)

Countdown timer to deadline

[roflcopter]

its really disturbing me how ckd's self vote apparently managed to derail the wagon on him

[Korts]

This question is based on an assumption that isn't really based on any evidence. Why are you assuming the Guardian kill was a scumkill unless you took part in deciding it?

Because Guardian makes no sense as a vig kill, and we're not even sure we have a vig. I can't completely rule it out, but I'm willing to assume the far, far liklier option.

I don't see how Guardian shouldn't make sense as a vig kill. You have to at least acknowledge that there were multiple players suspicious of him; and his attempt at stalling the CKD wagon at L-2 could've been taken as either buddying-up/opting for brownie points or derailing a scumbuddy-wagon as well as pro-town apprehension.

You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.

Why can't that be a scum move? It carries no real bad implications for her and gives the appearance that she's actually scumhunting.

That's true, to an extent. It's basically intuition that I tried to explain.

Shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is idiocy and a way to be acting like you're scumhunting. Again, looking at the motivations for her actions, I have the impression that she has slightly more motivation to be stirring up shit the way she's doing as town than as scum. Ignoring the motivations and running around screaming WIFOM isn't exactly a logical reply.

I just realized I meant third sentence, which is:

DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her.

If you take the first half of the sentence as granted, the second half is evident as conclusion. And the first half isn't circular logic/WIFOM in itself. Therefore I don't see what you're implying could be WIFOM here.

Circular argument, says nothing. Wasn't talking about WIFOM here. The BM-Guardian link that was part of your attack on BM is a WIFOM trap in light of his kill, I'm surprised you didn't comment on the kill in relation to BM before.

First off, wait a second. Circular logic is the same as WIFOM, unless you're misusing the term. Please give your definitions to those two terms. My understanding of WIFOM is derived from the Princess Bride, and deciding whether the Wine In Front of Me or the Wine In Front Of You is poisoned is a very clear circular argument.

Second, I admit that I failed to correct that the BM-Guardian link that I made is obviously invalid now that Guardian's flipped town. But that never was the focal point of my case. Note that the vote on BM (in post 327) came structurally after I replied to BM misrepping rofl even after clarification, and not after I accused BM and Guardian of being connected. I also continued the post after the vote.

This comment carries heavy implications without you having provided any proof. Where was I doing that? Quotes plz.

Firstly, I didn't know how else to phrase it. Secondly, it was you who were implying you knew Guardian was town. Since there are no pro-town linked roles on the front page, this doesn't sit well with me, particularly because you didn't outright state that you thought Guardian was town, but tried to plant the thought of Guardiantown with a passing comment.

I'd have had no problem with you stating that you have a town read on Guardian, what I do have a problem with is you trying to pass it as almost a suggestion.

Right here.

See bolded. My beef was with the very subtle

implication

that Guardian was town, specifically because of the structure of the sentence BM implied it in. When I first read it, I didn't even realize that he extended the implied townness to Guardian, I thought he only meant himself.

If you can't explain why you made the assumption of Guardian being a scumkill, why you think it's WIFOM to explore the motivations for certain ways of behaviour, and how I was attacking BM for his town read on Guardian, my vote will be more than happy to visit you for an extended stay.

What good does this threat do you?

[/quote]

Basically I thought, and still think, that you are merely following up on your stated "bad feeling" about me with a very poorly fabricated case. Your points are weak and rely in semantics.

unvote, vote: Raging Rabbit

[Yosarian2]

I don't think the link yos is trying to achieve between des and CKD holds any merit, and on the whole he comes up looking pretty bad from his exchange with des.

Oh? How so?

What do you think about destructor's actions in regards to the CKD wagon after CKD put himself at lynch -1? Do they make sense to you?

Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.

Here it's bad that people suspected him based on his unexplained vote on CKD and didn't ask what the reasons were (though as was said before, suspicion based on lack of explanation implies interest in said explanation).

Normally one would think so, but that's not how the posts looked to me, at all.

When des bluntly asks what the reasons are, per Yos' request, Yos casts that in a questionable light as well.

It's not questionable that he asked me, but it's really questionable that he didn't at all do so until I requested him.

This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.

I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.

Here in response to Vollkan's vote on on him, suddenly the reasoning for the CKD vote shoud've stayed at "gut" because his attempt to explain his logic got him attacked as well - though in the above quote he was all for explaining this. Very odd that he seems to hold the opposite opinion here, as if the only reason he explained in the first place was to say "I told you it should've statyed at gut."

Um, how could you possibly get that out of my post? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

I was pointing out that Volkan's actions were desturctive and anti-town, in that if you punish someone for trying to explain why he is suspicious of someone, then they're more likely to just say "gut", and that that is clearly less useful to the town.

I certanly didn't say "I told you it should have stayed at gut", or anything like that; me explaining my thought process should certanly help the rest of the town understand why I think CKD is most likely scum. On the other hand, Volkan voting me just because I explained my suspicions, especally when there was noting wrong or illogical about my suspicions, is very anti-town.

I notice you're trying to attack me for superficial and irrelevent side-issues and misrepresenting minor points of disagreement with Volkan, while totally not commenting on CKD himself here. Why is that?

DGB is acting way wackier than in the former and only other game I played with her, not sure what it means but I tend to see it as more of a scumtell since she's screwing up with everyone's scumdar and isn't doing much at this point to stir discussion.

...what game is that?

DGB is acting pretty much exactally like I've seen her do when she's pro-town, and she's done way more to "stir discussion" then most people have this game.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, just realized I never responded to this.

I would like people speculate as to why Guardian was killed. No, really.

It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.

I donno...best guess is, it's probably something totally unrelated. Perhaps he dropped some kind of power-role tell or something.

[vollkan]

Well, I was certanly willing to explain why I had some weird feelings on him, what part of his behavior seemed weird to me.

Ex post facto justification for a vote is besides the point. Certainly, it helps your credibility somewhat, but it doesn't remove the problems with your initial vote.

Note he was only asking this from people who were voting CKD; he wasn't asking anyone else to make cases on people. SO, again, I come back to the conclusion that either he suddenly had a problem with the CKD wagon, or else that he was trying to defend CKD for some other reason.

I think you're conflating two different things. There were posts when Des questioned your for your reasoning on other people - that's understandable, as a means of preventing scum from avoiding suspicion through tunneling , or as preventing townies from doing the same by accident.

He also made comments specifically identifying your vote as a "gut" vote and the lack of contribution to game discussion you had made. He never explicitly asks "Why did you vote CKD?" - but it's pretty clear that when somebody attacks a vote for being "gut", their problem is the lack of reasons.

It is, to use a legalistic term, a "necessary implication".

And then we get to your reasons for suspecting CKD:

Anyway, CKD's behavior this game has seemed really unusual; both in general, and compared to when I have played with him before. (I don't have much of a meta on him, having not played with him all that many times I think, but his behavior in this game really seems different).

This is entirely vague and doesn't even suggest he is scummy - unless changes in people's playstyle are inherently scummy.

I'm doing my best to explain my impressions here. Whatver the page count says, we're still pretty early in day 1 here. Besides, yes, a radical departure from someone's normal playstyle can be a scumtell.

Yeah, this is early D1. The first few pages were filled with what really appears to be just noise. That said, we aren't so early that you can really argue for the legitimacy of serious votes (remember, we are talking about a L-1 vote here) based on weak arguments.

And you didn't really answer my point about changes in playstyle being scummy. I asked as to whether changes are "inherently scummy" and you reply with that they "can be". Nobody could reasonably dispute that some shifts can be a scumtell, but that says nothing about CKD's playstyle here vs elsewhere.

So the fact that his "gut" goes against yours makes him scummy?

Usually, when a pro-town person says "I have a gut feeling X is scum", I can kind of understand why they might think that, based on the thread. In this case, I don't, at all. So yes, that does make him a little scummy.

I am not disputing that, when people see eye-to-eye with you, that can be a mild towntell (though, I have reservations about this).

In any event, that point needn't be contested here, because it's a huge leap in logic to say that, just because some gut agreement can be a towntell that some gut disagreement is a scumtell. Smart, reasonable people do disagree as town. OMGUS is a logical fallacy for this very reason - townies can disagree about what is scummy, so the fact that somebody finds your actions scummy doesn't necessarily make them scum.

Not the same thing.

There were a few days when I didn't realize the game had started. If you really want to try to make a case that that somehow makes me scummy, be my guest.

Meanwhile, he was posting, he was just posting in a way the makes me think he was not a pro-town person trying to find scum. Read his early posts, see what you think about that.

Your early game inactivity is completely understandable (I am pretty sure I have made the same mistake myself somewhere...).

I've already criticised CKD's earlier posts - chiefly the very fact that he was doing weak scumhunting and thought it legit, but he found fault for the same in others. But CKD is by no means alone in this, nor does it necessarily make him scummy, given the nature of early game.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but to simply say that " was just posting in a way the makes me think he was not a pro-town person trying to find scum" is pretty much meaningless. You might as well say "he was posting like scum".

This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.

I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.

Don't play the victim card, which you appear to be doing in your first sentence here. If you meant "gut", you should have stuck with "gut" and defended such a vote, rather than trying to justify yourself in a weak way. What you are doing here is effectively making yourself immune to attack - If it is a gut vote, you protest that gut is fine because it's early game. If it is not a gut vote, you protest that your weak reasons are fine because it's

my fault

for pressuring you to give them.

You cast a L-1 vote for vague unexplained reasons. I frankly cannot see how that can possibly be defensible. If it's early game, fine, then throw an FoS or something. In a game where so many people have been throwing around assertions of alignment, it's reckless at best to cast such a vote without justification - you're just paving the way for disaster.

Let's suppose CKD is lynched. No matter which way he flips, on the explanation you've provided, we have no means of discerning any details about your alignment from your vote.

Being able to "agree or disagree" is not the point - townies can disagree with each other. What I need is to be able to

assess

your vote to find out whether or not it is scummy, and to what degree. And, by definition, a gut vote makes that impossible.

And what the hell do you mean, I'm better then this? It's early on day 1 and I've already caught a scum and figured out who one of his scum partners is. What more do you want?

I meant that I know you to be an intelligent person and an excellent player and, as such, I expected more than a digestive meandering in defense of your vote.

I'm not sure what to make of vollkan's semi-defence of me or his delayed reaction to Yos' vote. It's not sitting well with me.

I'm not really "semi-defending" you. I just agreed with the point you brought to my attention about Yos's vote, which is also the reason for my delayed reaction.

dear vollkan,

here is my concrete reason for suspecting sensfan

he has done nothing but make jokes and get involved in theory debates. zero scum hunting. even his bm vote, here:

Vote: BM

for a self-vote followed by a No Lynch vote.

which he's stuck to since the beginning, is for theoretical points, not actual scumtells.

this is scummy in and of itself, but it is coupled with the fact that his stances in all of the debates he's gotten into have directly worked to benefit ckd.

finally, he is active elsewhere on the site, but he's very noticeably absent here.

satisfied?

lots of love,
roflcopter

ps, in light of sussing this out for myself, you can safely switch bm and sensfans' places on the updated list i just posted.

Satisfied? Not really - given how long it took. Placated? For now.

dgb gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. that has no bearing on her alignment at all, i just like her.

i also find her townish in this game.

Well, if your "warm fuzzy feeling" has no bearing on her alignment, what does?

Asked too soon:

more like intuition. that sounds better than gut, maybe vollkan won't have to go on another tirade because of it.

"Intuition" is gut in a cheap tuxedo. Nice try.

You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.

Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?

I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors. Town can do it also, of course, so it's ultimately a nulltell.

Shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is idiocy and a way to be acting like you're scumhunting. Again, looking at the motivations for her actions, I have the impression that she has slightly more motivation to be stirring up shit the way she's doing as town than as scum. Ignoring the motivations and running around screaming WIFOM isn't exactly a logical reply.

This isn't WIFOM, so much as the fact that stirring up reactions is something which benefits any alignment and, thus, it is neither a towntell nor a scumtell.

@Korts: In a few brief sentences, why are you voting RR? I ask because it wasn't clear from your last post

[Battle Mage]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

[Kison]

While that's nice and all, would you mind responding to the second quote in my post 399?

More tomorrow.

[roflcopter]

Satisfied? Not really - given how long it took. Placated? For now.

do you agree/disagree with my assessment? did you really care either way what i said about sensfan or were you more concerned with attacking me for not saying anything?

"Intuition" is gut in a cheap tuxedo. Nice try.

but doesn't it look good? tuxedos make everything look awesome.

[vollkan]

Satisfied? Not really - given how long it took. Placated? For now.

do you agree/disagree with my assessment? did you really care either way what i said about sensfan or were you more concerned with attacking me for not saying anything?

I do agree with your assessment of Sens. Having said that, the fact you didn't raise it at all initially (even implicitly), given it seems totally divorced from anything apparent in the pp 6-7 discussion, it doesn't really, as I said, outweigh the delay. Though any reasons are a plus.

I did care what you had to say about him - obviously I wanted to see whether you had decent reasons, but likewise I was also concerned with getting you to say

something

to explain yourself. The two really go hand-in-hand.

"Intuition" is gut in a cheap tuxedo. Nice try.

but doesn't it look good? tuxedos make everything look awesome.[/quote]

If you put a tuxedo on a pig, it's still a pig.

[DrippingGoofball]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

Explain how I'm lurking, scumbag. I'm interested.

[DrippingGoofball]

It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.

Yosarian confirmed himself town with the above paragraph.

[DrippingGoofball]

Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?

I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors.

Triggering TOWN errors??? Ugh? Townies don't have to make things up, they are far far less likely to trip on their own shoelaces than scumbags.

Speaking of trying to confuse people.

You're scum.

[Korts]

Normally one would think so, but that's not how the posts looked to me, at all.

What did those posts look to you like, then?

It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.

I donno...best guess is, it's probably something totally unrelated. Perhaps he dropped some kind of power-role tell or something.

Do you discount a vig kill as unlikely?

Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?

I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors. Town can do it also, of course, so it's ultimately a nulltell.

That's a stance that I can understand. I still hold that town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions. I guess it comes down to a difference in ideology.

This isn't WIFOM, so much as the fact that stirring up reactions is something which benefits any alignment and, thus, it is neither a towntell nor a scumtell

The fact that it isn't WIFOM was the point I was trying to make. RR was trying to pin a "circular logic" (i.e. WIFOM) tag on something that isn't. The fact that you deem it a nulltell is beside the point.

@Korts: In a few brief sentences, why are you voting RR? I ask because it wasn't clear from your last post

I'd said this before, right before the vote. I thought I was clear enough; I don't feel RR's case has any good points, and the ones that aren't reaching (my town read on DGB) are misreps or due to less thorough reading (accusing me of WIFOM, accusing me of questioning BM's town read of Guardian). Basically my impression is that RR made a case on me solely because he had previously expressed a general "bad feeling" about me, and tried to follow up on that.

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

To what?

I'm not sure I like DGB jumping at vollkan in post 462 for trying to explain how my town read on her isn't well-justified.

[populartajo]

Quick posting to tell you that this thread needs more CKD's lynch.

[DrippingGoofball]

Quick posting to tell you that this thread needs more CKD's lynch.

Woot! Another townie.

[Battle Mage]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

Explain how I'm lurking, scumbag. I'm interested.

you still havent responded to my previous question.

Where were you last thursday?

BM

[Battle Mage]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

To what?

To the question i asked. Duh.

BM

[Korts]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

To what?

To the question i asked. Duh.

BM

I thought the implicit implication that I didn't see you asking any question previously was sort of clear.

[Battle Mage]

i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall

To what?

To the question i asked. Duh.

BM

I thought the implicit implication that I didn't see you asking any question previously was sort of clear.

If that was the case, you could have looked at my posts in isolation, given it was my most recent post. Alternatively, you could have looked in the post above my response to you, which contained the question again.

BM

[Korts]

Yeah, I saw your question the second time. That's why I didn't bother to go back

[Raging Rabbit]

Re: Korts

I don't see how Guardian shouldn't make sense as a vig kill. You have to at least acknowledge that there were multiple players suspicious of him; and his attempt at stalling the CKD wagon at L-2 could've been taken as either buddying-up/opting for brownie points or derailing a scumbuddy-wagon as well as pro-town apprehension.

Any vig with a minimal amount of judgement who suspected such a connection would kill CKD rather than Guardian, to save the town a potential mislynch in case he was wrong. Other than the apparant connection I can't see any other reason anywhere near strong enough to warrant vigging Guardian, plus he was about to tell us why he didn't like the case on CKD so the timing of the kill prevented us information and was clearly anti-town, plus early kills in general favor the scum. Therefore, this being a vig kill is extremely unlikely and I'm comfortable assuming it was a scum kill.

If you take the first half of the sentence as granted, the second half is evident as conclusion. And the first half isn't circular logic/WIFOM in itself. Therefore I don't see what you're implying could be WIFOM here.

I never

said

it was WIFOM, I said circular logic. DGB's been pro town because you've no reason to suspect her, and you've no reason to suspect her because she's been pro town. This sentence doesn't actually say anything and is only there to make your read appear more justified.

First off, wait a second. Circular logic is the same as WIFOM, unless you're misusing the term. Please give your definitions to those two terms. My understanding of WIFOM is derived from the Princess Bride, and deciding whether the Wine In Front of Me or the Wine In Front Of You is poisoned is a very clear circular argument.

I don't have the patience to really go into exact definitions right now, but WIFOM is basically trying to form a set of assumptions that goes on an infinite loop and is therefore useless, while circular logic is an argument that depends upon itself as proof - X is bad because god said so, god said so because X is bad - and therefore in effect doesn't say anything new.

Second, I admit that I failed to correct that the BM-Guardian link that I made is obviously invalid now that Guardian's flipped town. But that never was the focal point of my case. Note that the vote on BM (in post 327) came structurally after I replied to BM misrepping rofl even after clarification, and not after I accused BM and Guardian of being connected. I also continued the post after the vote.

I just don't think a disagreement on the use of tenses - to which you later conceded - is cause for a vote, so I assumed the more important point was BM's connection to Guardain.

See bolded. My beef was with the very subtle implication that Guardian was town, specifically because of the structure of the sentence BM implied it in. When I first read it, I didn't even realize that he extended the implied townness to Guardian, I thought he only meant himself.

Subtle definitions aside, what you're basically doing here is

trying to dig deeper into a town read

- the same thing you accused BM of doing with your read on DGB.

Basically I thought, and still think, that you are merely following up on your stated "bad feeling" about me with a very poorly fabricated case. Your points are weak and rely in semantics.

Yes, my case stems from my inital strong gut feeling. How does that prove to you I'm scum exactly? I don't see any reasoning for your vote other than pure OMGUS.

[Raging Rabbit]

Re: Yos

Oh? How so?

Yos seems to go the distance to misrepresent my play.

Vollkan covered the point on your gut, so far as it's definition goes. I can concede, though, that my curiosity about your actual reasons may not have been as evident as I thought.

I don't understand how you could describe my vote change and interaction with ckd in the way you have, even after asking me for clarification and saying you understood. Saying I "dropped suspicion of ckd completely" is obviously misrepresentative given that my change of vote was accompanied by messages like, "ckd, I still want you to answer my questions." I've even said I could switch back to ckd if I wanted to. Where in that do you see me completely dropping my suspicion of him?

I don't even know why you'd begin to say I'm defending ckd or how my questioning you and Vollkan can be construed as attacks.

I'm seriously wondering if you actually believe this cause to suspect me.

This pretty much sums it up.

What do you think about destructor's actions in regards to the CKD wagon after CKD put himself at lynch -1? Do they make sense to you?

Yes.

It's not questionable that he asked me, but it's really questionable that he didn't at all do so until I requested him.

Only because you somehow interperted the attack itself as not asking you that question.

Um, how could you possibly get that out of my post? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

I was pointing out that Volkan's actions were desturctive and anti-town, in that if you punish someone for trying to explain why he is suspicious of someone, then they're more likely to just say "gut", and that that is clearly less useful to the town.

I certanly didn't say "I told you it should have stayed at gut", or anything like that; me explaining my thought process should certanly help the rest of the town understand why I think CKD is most likely scum. On the other hand, Volkan voting me just because I explained my suspicions, especally when there was noting wrong or illogical about my suspicions, is very anti-town.

Misread you there, but that doesn't solve the issue - you continually nodge people into asking you for reasons, and then when you provide said reasons and they don't find them convincing you attack them for questioning your reasons, which you claim is anti town. Basically what you've created here is a win-win situation where any reason you provide should be seen as pro town because you could've just said gut. I think it's pretty absurd to say that questioning your reasoning is anti town in and of itself, questioning other people's reasoning is a big part of playing this game, despite the "pure gut" reasoning being impossible to question.

I notice you're trying to attack me for superficial and irrelevent side-issues and misrepresenting minor points of disagreement with Volkan, while totally not commenting on CKD himself here. Why is that?

Already commented on CKD, I'm not convinced by the case on him and see him as neutral-pro town. Anything specific you want me to refer to?

...what game is that?

Lovers Multiball, though to be fair she played most of it as TS and then replaced in as DGB.

[Korts]

I never said it was WIFOM, I said circular logic.

DGB's been pro town because you've no reason to suspect her

, and you've no reason to suspect her because she's been pro town. This sentence doesn't actually say anything and is only there to make your read appear more justified.

The bolded part is BS. Me not having a reason to suspect her doesn't meant she's been pro-town specifically, just that she hasn't been scummy. Her being pro-town does, however, mean that I don't have a reason to suspect her.

I don't have the patience to really go into exact definitions right now, but WIFOM is basically trying to form a set of assumptions that goes on an infinite loop and is therefore useless, while circular logic is an argument that depends upon itself as proof - X is bad because god said so, god said so because X is bad - and therefore in effect doesn't say anything new.

I think what you're describing is begging the question. Nonetheless, I get your point, and see the above quote and reply.

I just don't think a disagreement on the use of tenses - to which you later conceded - is cause for a vote, so I assumed the more important point was BM's connection to Guardain.

I did later concede that point, but at the time of my vote, it wasn't clear whether BM was just being boneheaded about it or purposefully misrepping. And purposeful misrepping I see as a valid premise for a vote.

Subtle definitions aside, what you're basically doing here is trying to dig deeper into a town read - the same thing you accused BM of doing with your read on DGB.

What? That's BS. You're completely missing the point. I wasn't "digging deeper into the town read"--there wasn't a stated town read. I was accusing BM of subtly implying the notion that Guardian is town. I never asked BM to clarify on his read.

Yes, my case stems from my inital strong gut feeling. How does that prove to you I'm scum exactly? I don't see any reasoning for your vote other than pure OMGUS.

Obviously you don't have much option other than accuse me of OMGUS or back down. And you're conveniently ignoring what I said in 452 in the last paragraph, just so you can make another jab at me.

I'll say it again. The thing that convinced me wasn't that you followed up on your gut case, but the fact that you followed up with such a weak case and invalid points, and seemingly only for the sake of staying consistent with your apparent "bad feeling" regarding me.

[Yosarian2]

Well, I was certanly willing to explain why I had some weird feelings on him, what part of his behavior seemed weird to me.

Ex post facto justification for a vote is besides the point. Certainly, it helps your credibility somewhat, but it doesn't remove the problems with your initial vote.

What problems with my initial vote?

Do you really have a problem with me voting for someone and not explaining all the reason why I did so right away? Because that's a common tactic I use to get the most useful reactions. Usually, I wait for the person I voted for to respond to the initial vote, and then I go into more details. And as of the time of your attack on me, he had not yet responded to my initial vote. (Unless you count "voting for himself" as a response.)

He also made comments specifically identifying your vote as a "gut" vote and the lack of contribution to game discussion you had made. He never explicitly asks "Why did you vote CKD?" - but it's pretty clear that when somebody attacks a vote for being "gut", their problem is the lack of reasons.

Go back and show me the post where you think Destructor was in some way trying to put pressure on me to get me to explain my CKD post, or where he was putting pressure on me for "gut voting" in order to get me to explain my vote, or whatever, and quote it. Because as far as I can see, there wasn't one.

Yeah, this is early D1. The first few pages were filled with what really appears to be just noise. That said, we aren't so early that you can really argue for the legitimacy of serious votes (remember, we are talking about a L-1 vote here) based on weak arguments.

Why do you keep bringing up the lynch -1 thing here?

There seems to be a running theme here that people are insisting that if someone gets to lynch -1, everyone should suddenly unvote him and abandon the bandwagon. If my vote was legitimate when I cast it (and you didn't have any problem with it then, and neither did destuctor; in fact, you both agreed with me at the time that he looked scummy and were both voting for him), then I'm not going to unvote while he's lurking, and I'm not going to unvote while he's voting himself.

Are you really buying into this whole "if someone gets to lynch -1 you should unvote him" garbage Destructor is pushing here? I was voting CKD because I thought he was more likely to be scum then anyone else, and I expect to keep voting him until he or someone else changes my mind about him, until someone else looks scummier, or unless he dies. Him being at lynch -1 changes nothing.

I am not disputing that, when people see eye-to-eye with you, that can be a mild towntell (though, I have reservations about this).

In any event, that point needn't be contested here, because it's a huge leap in logic to say that, just because some gut agreement can be a towntell that some gut disagreement is a scumtell. Smart, reasonable people do disagree as town. OMGUS is a logical fallacy for this very reason - townies can disagree about what is scummy, so the fact that somebody finds your actions scummy doesn't necessarily make them scum.

Oh, I often disagree with people about who looks scummy, but that's not what I said. I said that when a pro-town person says they find someone scummy, I can usually at least UNDERSTAND why they might think that, no matter if I agree with it or not. So, yes; the "gut" vote he made there on ROFL at a time when he looked very pro-town to me was a big part of the reason I had a weird feeling about him.

I've already criticised CKD's earlier posts - chiefly the very fact that he was doing weak scumhunting and thought it legit, but he found fault for the same in others. But CKD is by no means alone in this, nor does it necessarily make him scummy, given the nature of early game.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but to simply say that " was just posting in a way the makes me think he was not a pro-town person trying to find scum" is pretty much meaningless. You might as well say "he was posting like scum".

Well, the biggest difference between a pro-town person and a scum at the early stage of the game is that a pro-town person is really looking for scum, and a scum is not. And fundimentally, CKD's posts there made me think he was not. It even sounds like you agree with my conclusion there, that it didn't look like he was actually scumhunting in any real way (although I'm not sure why you think he "thought it was legit"). So, I'm not sure how you can agree with that but then not understand how that is a scumtell.

Don't play the victim card, which you appear to be doing in your first sentence here. If you meant "gut", you should have stuck with "gut" and defended such a vote, rather than trying to justify yourself in a weak way.

You're not understanding here.

Usually, when someone has a gut feeling that someone else is scum, they can at least try and explain what posts gave them that feeling, try to put into words why they have that feeling. That's a good thing to do, and that's what I've been trying to do. I'm not understanding why you're attacking me for it.

What you are doing here is effectively making yourself immune to attack - If it is a gut vote, you protest that gut is fine because it's early game. If it is not a gut vote, you protest that your weak reasons are fine because it's

my fault

for pressuring you to give them.

You can attack me for my reasons if you want. But you haven't, in any way that makes sense. You seem to understand why a change in playstyle can be a scumtell; you seem to understand how I would think he wasn't really scumhunting. All you're really attacking me for is that you seem to think my reasons are "too weak" to constitue a vote, which is an absurd argument unless you can present a logically stronger case on someone else. (Hint: you haven't.)

You cast a L-1 vote for vague unexplained reasons.

I "cast" a L-1 vote? Um, no, I did not. When I cast my vote, it was not lynch -1. And I'm sure as hell never ever under any circumstances going to unvote someone just because he self voted.

Again, this is the thing you keep coming back to, and it makes zero sense. How does him putting himself at lynch -1 change anything? Are we now required to strech day 1 out to make it last a full month these days no matter what happens, or what?

I frankly cannot see how that can possibly be defensible. If it's early game, fine, then throw an FoS or something. In a game where so many people have been throwing around assertions of alignment, it's reckless at best to cast such a vote without justification - you're just paving the way for disaster.

"Paving the way to disaster"? WTF? It's day 1. Town is supposed to just lynch someone who looks scummy then move on to day 2. If town is REALLY good, we might even have a 45%-50% chance of getting it right. Why are people so afraid to even come close to a lynch these days that a guy putting himself at lynch -1 makes everyone jump off of the bandwagon? Games don't HAVE to last a year and a half, you know.

Let's suppose CKD is lynched. No matter which way he flips, on the explanation you've provided, we have no means of discerning any details about your alignment from your vote.

"No means of discerning my alignment"? Really? Just because I didn't go into detail about all the reasons for my vote the instant I voted?