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

[SpyreX]

@Volk:

At this point, do you think OP and Ort are scum that claimed masons?

I'd like the small gallery of quiet folk to say something about any of the things goin on.

[mrfixij]

Next week is finals week, I should have time to go back and mull over what's been said after monday.

[vollkan]

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.

No, it wasn't a false dichotomy. As I just said:

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

There's no false dichotomy. I was giving you a greater degree of tolerance for error than I would give to an experienced player, for whom I wouldn't consider the prospect of dazed newbie. In the same way that you proceed with a presumption that contradiction is scummy because no reasonable townie would do it, I proceeded with a presumption that no reasonable townie would hedge, but I had to explicitly address the prospect of you not being a reasonable townie (ie. being a dazed newbie).

There is, therefore, no false dichotomy. I explicitly considered scumminess and newbie error, and I have been able to explain my assumption against reasonable error on request.

As I have already said, phrases such as "a lack of commitment to your own argument" and "your arguments were hedged" are loaded phrases.

If I was to say "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote" is this "a lack of commitment to my own argument"? No, because my argument is only that he has acted the most scummy and thus warrants a vote, not that he definitively is scummy. You're importing your own prejudices about what a vote signifies by saying otherwise.

Again with the phrase "hedging your arguments"- this to me strongly implies a *deliberate* act, which I dispute it was- it may have had the effect of looking to others as though I was trying to justify why I may be voting for a townie- but this is just an interpretation based on the circumstances. So again, I deny that it is an objective fact that I "hedged my arguments".

If you said "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote", then that does show a lack of commitment and hedging. The hedging is deliberate for the simple fact you typed it. You deliberately downplayed your argument's strength - you deliberately hedged.

It doesn't necessarily follow that you did so for scummy reasons, of course, but it's not a question of what you actually did in your own mind, but of what the rest of us can see and what is reasonable.

Dear Vollkan, the energy you put into arguing unarguable grounds that may sounds pretty on paper but are indeed very far removed from mafia reality is amazing, and I think quite scummy because I think you do have the pragmatic experience to know that you are spewing BS.

Everything I have said I firmly believe and you need only look at my meta to see that the views I express are my own.

Please do show me one case in the entire mafia history that couldn't be explained 'reasonably' away, especially on day 1.

Then I'll show you any number of instances where a case is spot on despite being possibly 'reasonably' explained away.

You see, any scum worth his money knows to thrive within the confines of reasonableness, and I do not believer for one second that you can be oblivious to that fact.

Mafia is about perspective, and finding the right one in a sea of possibilities that are all equally uncertain. The reason of this uncertainty is because there isn't a standard for scum action that you can 'objectively' check people's action against to determine what is scummy or not. What is left is hypothesis, and agreement or lack thereof upon them.

Yes, SL. You are completely correct that scum can and do exploit reasonableness. That's precisely because we don't have quantitative probabilities to evaluate actions against.

What's your point?

I've never made any pretence that my theory is a foolproof method of catching scum. My argument has simply been that my objective play theory is better for town than subjective play theory.

That said I'm still sold on Vollkan. I think my original arguments stands true

They don't.

and I also urge people to reread our argument, because I think there is backpedalling on Vollkan part (specifically on my 'contradiction' thing),

Could you elaborate?

I also think that his manner of responding first appeasing-ly to my case then going full steam for 'I'm so scummy for it' is scummy.

If my attitude changed, it was only because I found fault in your arguments. I can't see why or how that is scummy.

Plus, his latching on my 'misplaced' post argument and trying to represent all my arguments as equivalent is what I would expect scum to do.

I've used the misplaced post as an example, because it's the only one of your arguments that isn't couched in some highfalutin abstract concept like "unclear perspective". Your arguments are all equivalent because they all boil down to conspiracy.

@Volk:

At this point, do you think OP and Ort are scum that claimed masons?

If they hadn't claimed by now, I'd definitely be calling for them to be strung up - which makes this a bizarre situation. Two scum claiming mason together D1 is a huge gambit. I don't think it's absurd, by any means, but I think it unlikely.

At this stage, I think they are more likely to be scum than an "average claimed mason", but because of their claimed status I think it is less likely they are scum than the "average player" - if that makes sense.

[orangepenguin]

Well, when one of us is likely nightkilled tomorrow, I guess you can throw away your doubt.

I am getting so far behind in this thread, I don't even know where to begin! I planned on catching up during the holidays last week, but I was pretty busy, and I had other games I had to play catch up in too, so I kind of put this one on the backburner, since I wasn't under pressure like my other games, you know? Kind of silly. But I hope to fully committ again, or otherwise, I'll just ask for replacement, so I don't slow done the game any more than I might have already.

I keep getting CPU QUota errors on the sites server, so I am not going to catch up tonight, like I wanted to.

[mykonian]

from post 403

post 403. Explicit agreement is problematic, because you have no way to tell the person you agree with isn´t scum. You should make up your own mind.

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

post 406. This was a pretty obvious softclaim, wasn't it? But you didn't think logically about it, because you had to follow your policy, isn't it vollkan?

post 411. And that willingness to find scum gives you at least 1 towny point.

post 412. Orto, if you got a feeling someone is scum, the correct way to play this, is to say you have that feeling, and to go search for arguments that would explain your feeling. Vollkan did it right here.
I don't care how often you use the word prejudiced, I want arguments I can look over. This doesn't tell anything.

post 413. Vollkan, there is no need to insult orto. Or you are town and you are going to argue every point with him, or you are scum that tries to do the same, because he wants to look town, but this is not the way. But you still posted it, so it has a function. I think I know how to translate it: You are wrong, because you are dumb, I don't have to argue with you.

I really don't know what to think about you vollkan. One moment you can make clear why something is right or wrong, the other moment you go to subjective argument, like you have no better. And all the theory discusion, is it really helping? From all your posts, I really have to search for the important points, because there is so much that is close to irrelevant. Is that a strategy?

[ortolan]

I personally think it is- by turning this into what is essentially a debating competition vollkan is distracting from the underlying task of actually finding scum.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 0 ()

springlullaby - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, mrfixij)

Ectomancer - 0 ()
vollkan - 2 (ortolan, springlullaby)
SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 1 (mykonian)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (orangepenguin, TDC, Spoilum)

springlullaby is at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

Votes are the same as the last vote count.

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

Activity List:

(player's name) (date and time of last post)

Spolium

Mana_Ku

(Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:39 pm)

orangepenguin (Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:35 am)
ortolan (Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:10 am)
mykonian (Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:12 am)
springlullaby (Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:02 am)

Ectomancer (Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:24 pm)

vollkan (Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:09 pm)
SpyreX (Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:00 pm)
mrfixij (Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:38 pm)

TDC (Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:54 am)

I'm still on the lookout for a replacement for Spolium, but it's not looking too good. I'm considering a mod-kill, which will always end the day.

I'm also considering prodding Ectomancer and TDC if they don't post in the next 24 hours.

[Ectomancer]

I've been following this and I've got 2 observations:

Vollkan is overly verbose, giving Orto's post 430 some legs to stand on. It can also be blamed on the observation below.

Ortolan was an early candidate for a VI. I can see why Vollkan might be inclined to not want to argue with him if he thinks he is a dim star on a cloudy night.

[ortolan]

Ortolan was an early candidate for a VI. I can see why Vollkan might be inclined to not want to argue with him if he thinks he is a dim star on a cloudy night.

Sorry can you explain this sentence? Are you saying vollkan wouldn't want to argue with me because he thinks I am stupid, or something else?

[Ectomancer]

See post 429

[ortolan]

Sorry, I just find the notion that vollkan would "not want to argue" with *anyone * laughable

And just remember I was the first to express skepticism that the process of "argument" in this game was actually getting us anywhere.

[vollkan]

from post 403

post 403. Explicit agreement is problematic, because you have no way to tell the person you agree with isn´t scum. You should make up your own mind.

The fact that somebody could be scum shouldn't stop you expressly agreeing with them if you think they are in the right. You still have to "make up your own mind", insofar as you have to decide whether you agree with them.

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

The inductive/deductive thing was pointless. It was just a lot of noise from Orto that obfuscated the simple point about having to prove which story is correct.

post 406. This was a pretty obvious softclaim, wasn't it? But you didn't think logically about it, because you had to follow your policy, isn't it vollkan?

As I have said, the softclaim obviously meant 'mason', but softclaims by their very nature are ambiguous. It is by no means unusual for people to hyperbolise and say "X is so townie" or "I know X is town". Thus, my policy is to ignore a softclaim and hope the person drops the matter and only claims at an appropriate time (ie.. claims should be a sort of "any last words" thing, not a "I'm a Doc, leave me alone" thing)

post 413. Vollkan, there is no need to insult orto. Or you are town and you are going to argue every point with him, or you are scum that tries to do the same, because he wants to look town, but this is not the way. But you still posted it, so it has a function. I think I know how to translate it: You are wrong, because you are dumb, I don't have to argue with you.

I argue every point regardless of my alignment. I'm an argumentative person in real life, too.

And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)

I really don't know what to think about you vollkan. One moment you can make clear why something is right or wrong, the other moment you go to subjective argument, like you have no better. And all the theory discusion, is it really helping? From all your posts, I really have to search for the important points, because there is so much that is close to irrelevant. Is that a strategy?

I haven't made a single subjective argument. If you mean the gut thing, and you don't want to wade through my posts, I made no claim about Ixfij's alignment from my gut. I simply stated that I felt something odd, and I was clear that I don't take that as indicating anything objective about him.

The theory discussion is important. Though, I admit my writing style is very dense. It's not an alignment-based strategy (brief glance over my meta will confirm this beyond a shred of doubt); it's just a personal quirk.

[Ectomancer]

Murky waters indeed.

Alright, we have a bit of an issue. We've got 2 players that we believe are likely town. That's not bad really, but in this situation, the ordinary course of action isn't really occurring.
One of them has decided to actively lurk and focus on other games.
The other has (at least with me) a credibility issue he shares with his partner. Sitting here as the town player you and your partner tried to railroad does not inspire me to follow you in your case.
Thirdly, game theory is important, but so is brevity. I'm getting glassy eyed reading over these large texts subjective objective Bluuuurrrr.

After 18 pages, we have enough to rely on actions. Let's take it apart, see who has done things that could be scum motivated, decide which is the likeliest among the pool of cases and string that person up. I'd like to see some brief, concise cases written up from people. Make them on me if you must. Also, if you must use quotes, keep them few in number. Better to refer to post #'s if possible.

OrangePenguin, you need to play the game out. You may not be under pressure personally, but you are under obligation to (try to) do some leading after your claim. Besides, few things are as annoying as having to replace in to a game where the player before you claimed and quit. You know? I always think " Jerk, if you were going to quit, why the hell did you claim?"

[SpyreX]

I agree with their play being poor. I also agree that chances are high they are town.

However, who would you push at this point?

[Ectomancer]

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

[ortolan]

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

The inductive/deductive thing was pointless. It was just a lot of noise from Orto that obfuscated the simple point about having to prove which story is correct.

It was not pointless, you've either not understood or deliberately pretended not to. I was going to again reply but this debate isn't leading anywhere, so I'm not even going to bother. At least two players are not keeping up in this game, quite possibly explained by the sheer verbosity explained by vollkan. So I'm happy to concede the best debater award to vollkan for a chance for the game not to stall entirely.

And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)

For the record I still disagree, but the effort of again deconstructing your arguments is not worth the reward it will bring. An argument from majority (which is all you'd have to resort to) wouldn't change my mind either. And again I repeat the point that your ability in debating/rhetoric is independent of the likelihood of you being scum, and trying to divert the game down that road seems scum-motivated. Everyone knows debating is skill-based and relies on people's skills in twisting neutral topics one way or the other. You seem to want to do this (and are willing to lynch people based on it) based on how you twist your perceptions of their skill at argument, rather than hunting them based on your determined probability that they're scum.

vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.

Uh...my policy reason was the reason I didn't ask. I thought it was premature for a claim, and claims should only occur explicitly.

This is not at all convincing. You've been so keen to analyse and deconstruct everything this game except the only occurence so far that is actually relevant to game content (a mason claim).

(brief glance over my meta will confirm this beyond a shred of doubt)

actually, as I already stated, your play this game is not consistent with what I've observed of your meta. Actually, wait, there was one other game where you played just as arrogantly (refused to claim at L-1 etc.). You were lynched and flipped scum.

Can we get some activie towards whether we're going to lynch sl or vollkan (or me, I'm happy to put my head out to prove how ridiculous and un-town-motivated vollkan's attempt to turn on a claimed mason is).

[mykonian]

Vollkan talks too much, but other then that, he seems quite reasonable. The only weak point in it is that I feel he thinks he is above arguing with his attackers.

Spring has had a few weak votes, and went back in to lurking. Let's not make more of this case then it is.

Mrfixij. Jumped on a bandwagon, gave reasons after there was asked for it.

Mykonian. Should have sticked his first feeling, and shouldn't have tried to move the points view about a case.

I think those are the people that are in the hat now.

[mykonian]

EBWOP Mykonian. Should have sticked his first feeling, and shouldn't have tried to move the towns view about a case.

[vollkan]

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

This is not at all convincing. You've been so keen to analyse and deconstruct everything this game except the only occurence so far that is actually relevant to game content (a mason claim).

What's not to understand?

I think soft claims are bad and ambiguous, therefore I ignore potential softclaims
I think premature claims are bad, therefore I don't inquire for a "confirm or deny" of any softclaims.

actually, as I already stated, your play this game is not consistent with what I've observed of your meta. Actually, wait, there was one other game where you played just as arrogantly (refused to claim at L-1 etc.). You were lynched and flipped scum.

You brought this up earlier. I address it with these questions, which I don't think you ever answered:

Firstly, what games are you comparing with?

Secondly, the conclusion you draw - that my posts are typically shorter than they are here - really couldn't be further from the truth. My reputation generally is for enormously long posts. And, not infrequently, this does draw the criticism that I hide behind walls of text as a shield. Not true - I am just naturally verbose.

Thirdly, if you find it hard understand what I am saying, that doesn't in any way justify drawing a conclusion of scumminess, yet alone a conclusion that I am deliberately hazing.

And I know which game you are referring to. I'd say, simply, that my play there was by no means an aberration from the norm of my play. It's meaningless other than as confirmation that I try to keep a consistent style.

I'm happy to put my head out to prove how ridiculous and un-town-motivated vollkan's attempt to turn on a claimed mason is

What do you mean by "turn on a claimed mason"?

In pre-emption: If you mean that I have argued stridently against you, so what?

[TDC]

Sorry, this game sort of fell off the truck for me.

My hat is really empty..

Anyway.
Ectomancer: Quite a while ago you tried to vote myk, but it failed because you didn't unvote, so the mod still has you voting SpyreX. I didn't notice until now, but one would think that at least you would notice your vote was on the wrong person?

mykonian: You recently unvoted mrfixij and then revoted him (a page or so later). What changed in between?

Other than that, vollkan and SpyreX like the same wagons (Ecto->orto->(Ecto->)sl)

Also, the only wagon that ever reached 4 votes had our two claimed masons on it.

If anyone else cares (and can maybe make some sense of it), here the full(?) list of votes cast:

orangepenguin(1): +SpyreX
Ectomancer(1): +orangepenguin
orangepenguin(2): SpyreX,+Juls
vollkan(1): +mrfixij
vollkan(2): mrfixij,+vollkan
springlullaby(1): +ortolan
vollkan(1): mrfixij,-vollkan
mrfixij(1): +vollkan
springlullaby(1): +springlullaby
mrfixij(0): -vollkan
vollkan(2): mrfixij,+vollkan
springlullaby(0): -springlullaby
vollkan(3): mrfixij,vollkan,+springlullaby
Ectomancer(0): -orangepenguin
springlullaby(2): ortolan,+mykonian
SpyreX(1): +Ectomancer
vollkan(2): mrfixij,springlullaby,-vollkan
Ectomancer(1): +vollkan
vollkan(1): springlullaby,-mrfixij
SpyreX(2): Ectomancer,+mrfixij
orangepenguin(0): -SpyreX
Ectomancer(2): vollkan, +SpyreX
springlullaby(1): ortolan,-mykonian
SpyreX(3): Ectomancer,mrfixij,+mykonian
Ectomancer(3): vollkan,SpyreX,+orangepenguin
springlullaby(0): -ortolan
Ectomancer(4): vollkan,SpyreX,orangepenguin,+ortolan
vollkan(0): -springlullaby
ortolan(1): +springlullaby
Ectomancer(3): vollkan,SpyreX,orangepenguin,-ortolan
Ectomancer(2): vollkan,orangepenguin,-SpyreX
ortolan(2): springlullaby,+SpyreX
Ectomancer(1): orangepenguin,-vollkan
ortolan(3): springlullaby,SpyreX,+vollkan
orangepenguin(1): +TDC
SpyreX(2): Ectomancer,mrfixij,-mykonian
orangepenguin(0): -TDC
ortolan(2): springlullaby,vollkan,-SpyreX
ortolan(1): springlullaby,-vollkan
ortolan(0): -springlullaby
Ectomancer(2): orangepenguin,+SpyreX
vollkan(1): +ortolan
vollkan(2): ortolan,+springlullaby
Ectomancer(1): orangepenguin,-SpyreX
springlullaby(1): +SpyreX
SpyreX(1): Ectomancer,-mrfixij
springlullaby(2): SpyreX,+mrfixij
springlullaby(3): SpyreX,mrfixij,+vollkan
Ectomancer(0): -orangepenguin
mrfixij(1): +mykonian
mrfixij(0): -mykonian
mrfixij(1): +mykonian

[mykonian]

You had something against the case, and I needed sleep.

So I reviewed my opinion, and after that, I still thought mrfixij the scummiest.

[mrfixij]

Alright guys, I'm back. Still don't like spring, but I've got a few things to question vollkan about, as I'm seeing a lot of recent stupidity from him.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

Wait, what? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if her perspective is inductive or deductive, we should just view it as inductive because it makes her look scummy? If inductive vs deductive is irrelevant, why do you mention inductiveness right after explaining the irrelevance?

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

Appeal to self-authority. In fact, I'm seeing a ton of implicit semi-gambits that you're playing in order to view a reaction. I'm quite curious about this. You take issue to the unspoken aspect of mafia as you say here:

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

But then go ahead and leave numerous implications and contradictions in your posts for the sole purpose of "drawing a reaction" In fact, your self-vote, which we're criticizing Spring for was also to "draw a reaction." I've got no issue against scumhunting, and if this "reaction-drawing" is a primary method that you use, then would you please make that explicit now? As it is, you're using a ton of good logic, but then throwing in bits and pieces of personal opinion which go against your logic.

In fact, I think I see what Spring meant by unclear perspective, but I think she worded it wrongly. You're hedging your cases inside each other. You're making your case based on strong logic and contradictions in others' statements. But when you put forth your own opinion, or interpret your arguments, you're leaving a rather large gap and putting your foot in your mouth so to speak. Your perspective is very clear when you offer it. However, your perspective tends to not follow the case you line up.

And on a lighter note:

I've neither done nor said anything relating to Ixfij which requires justification.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

HOLY EGO BATMAN!

Also a joke: these quote tunnels seem to be hedged inside each other. Perhaps this an exampled of HEDGING ARGUMENTS!

Sorry, sometimes I think the mood gets too dire in this game.

I'm going to wrap this up because I don't want to lose another hour and a part of my mind in an immense argument.

Vollkan: your issue is in your interpretations vs your arguments. Your arguments are solid, your interpretations and opinions are not reflective of said arguments. This is a seeming contradiction. Also, your excessive use of gambits intended to draw a reaction is slightly worrysome, and I'd like you to be explicit here and state if this is what you have been and plan to do for the rest of the game.

For the record: I don't know if Vollkan is being scummy or not. The above is simply my critique of his style recently. As he responds, I'll be able to see if he's scummy or not.

Spring has brought forth lots of defense but little content so far. My vote stays, but I acknowledge the mitigation of suspicions.

I'll get back to mykonian in a second, this post is dragging on long enough.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP for vollkan: Also, I wanted to know what the "opinion" that you expressed having, but never elaborated on was pertaining to me. I meant to add that to my paragraph of summary about you.

[mrfixij]

Mykonian's primary case against me is my vote on spring. Said vote is scummy, and was not justified until after I'd been asked about it.

I've already addressed this, but I will go back and restate my defense.

In hindsight, it may have been better to not place my vote until I had time to present my case also. However, I consider the short timespan between my vote and my case good enough. I had 26 hours between my vote and case. Of those 26 hours, I had 8 hours of work, a short post in the meantime which was rushed, and mostly an indication of a skim through spyre's argument at 1:00 AM. After that, I had to sleep until class, and I came back to post at 4:00-5:00 PM.

In short, the only scummy thing in there was not waiting to vote until the next day. I didn't know when my next chance to post would be, so I wanted to get a vote cast.

I don't like using real life to defend myself, but in such a short timespan it's ridiculous to assume that a case was provoked by a demand for it.

[mykonian]

But it is not like there is any better around now, so I'll stick with this.