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

[ortolan]

LOL

I can't oppose this move

[SpyreX]

And.. what was it? I have no idea.

I was talking about in the midst of the page 20 war of the words the little SL snipe (that was never followed up by anything) and was the first "appearance" in a while.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

The next post was the I'm not even reading Volkan anymore.

Scumminess is not inherent in complete posts, therefore, quoting someone in full is often useless in proving a point. It is not spyrex’s posts that I find scummy. It is certain aspects of how he is playing this game. In my first read through he seems to deflect questions more than answer them. And when suspicions are raised he asks for more specific questions. If you have nothing to hide then why can’t you just address the suspicions. Underlying all of this(to me) is a desire to keep something hidden. That is what I find scummy so far. It could be his play style and I just have to get used to it. Also, when I said “top” of my scum list, I did by no means intend to put you as the frontrunner. In fact, you are all scum to me. Orto and op have claimed masons, so they earn the first reprieve. What I decided to do was offer up some virtual “third party” observations about the ebb and flow of the game. I looked back and thought about quoting some references for you, but my point(as I have said) is not about the general scumminess of spyrex, but of observations about the way he is posting. I am getting a lot of :

Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus

asking for clarification

? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

As for not addressing the suspicions - well, aside from the fact that I'm not, the nature of "suspicions" requires specifics if it is to be discussed. "I find you suspicious." Or "I find this suspicious" doesn't hold water without an attached

why

. Every example you've given of my “let‘s move the game forward, I don‘t like your questions or your inferences is simply an attempt to clarify positions that I don't understand fully OR, of course, asking to further discussion when I am getting "You're scummy" but, again, not an "You're scummy because of X".

All of your examples make, again, a lot more sense in context. If you're going to give examples give them contextually.

And, yes, I will ask questions to a claimed mason because even IF I believe their claim that does not equate to them having some edge on looking for scum. So, yea.

“muddy the waters” is defining in and of itself.

How did

this discussion

"muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.

I cant believe I had to italicize this.

What’s funny is that after all of this, spyrex begins making decent, insightful posts. He comes on strong pro town, and his posting on the lurkers and possible scenarios is actually well thought out and presented. My problem with that, is how sure he is of certain things on day 1. I lean towards scum because of this dodgy attitude, which as I have shown with my own posting that he exhibits. (I am referring to your dodding my spam question.) perhaps it is play style, perhaps something more. I brought all of this up because you said you didn’t even know who I was. After reading all you have to say on the lurkers, why did you forget about me? Were you just looking to get “someone” lynched?

After all of what? Your post?

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

As for the spam question that I missed because in relation to everything else it was irrelevant:

I think this is going to be a very interesting game. Wink

We've got some very verbose players and I think thats going to make a difference.

I sure hope you're not trying to meta, already. Razz

As I had already made myself fairly clear on the main issue I made a couple statements inherent there:

1.) The fact that people were (as I stated) having a discussion that I thoguht could easily lead away from the main issue at hand (the game itself) that it was going to be very interesting because people were

in fact talking

.
2.) That I dislike meta and I already saw it creeping into the conversation that was already teetering on not being directly relevant and wanted to comment on that one thing specifically.

So, yes, thats my spam.

[orangepenguin]

I just wanted to see how you would react to a vote, since IMO you have flown under the radar. Eh. It was nothing I was going to pursue, but I figured I would give it a go. It'd probably work better if I was more involved, but meh.

unvote,

vote: Don Johnson

.

His reasoning is just off, and strikes me wrong.

[mykonian]

I'm going to need a lot convincing don, because I really think you are going nowhere with your case on Spyrex.

And vollkan, both times you use a (negative) word to charactarize the play of an attacker, while you also could have defended without it, as in the first post you defend against the attacker right after you call it ridiculous (see the or in my post? I think if you call a post of spring ridiculous, you could be giving spring a label), and in the second word seems just to be taking one possible explanation, and using that as the truth. Again, why would you use the word conspiracy. While everything you say is thought out, you are using (negative) subjective words to characterize your attackers, and I wouldn't think you above it that you do it on purpose.

[don_johnson]

@Spyrex - Why do you think that a deadline would be beneficial?

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its day 1. there is not much to prove at this point. i find spyrex seems to be more interested in getting a lynch, than in who we actually lynch. no, my case against spyrex is not strong. i haven't read a strong case yet. ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree. orange penguin just voted me because:

His reasoning is just off, and strikes me wrong.

brilliant. if noone else sees the pattern i see with spyrex then that's fine. i accept that.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this quote defines itself. this is what i mean. this tenacious desire for evidence of what is basically my

interpretation

of the data. "you seem dodgy". its a statement. your response has been most illuminating.

[mykonian]

don, as town, it is your job to convince us about who you think is scum, or town. Keeping ideas for yourself is not helping. Show us where you find spyrex dodgy and we may vote with you and lynch scum. BTW same counts for OP:

Hereby I feel orangepinguins reasoning seems off.

vote OP

a. do you think this will convince anyone?
b. if this will become a lynch, would you consider it random? Would you consider it protown?
c. is any discussion about such a statement possible?

and would you please become a little more active? then you don't have to complain that you are not that involved. See this as a pressure vote.

[don_johnson]

LOL dude, did you just vote for a claimed(and corroborated) mason? exactly what kind of pressure are you hoping for...

to wit: can someone let me know why our masons claimed? seems kind of a dumb thing to do.

TDC: when i implied that you weren't "paying attention", i meant to the game. i will have to reread my notes, but that post of yours seemed(to me) like you just posted to post and had not carefully read the couple pages prior. i could be totally wrong as with any of my thoughts, it was just something i noticed.

[mykonian]

Could you also react on the part of my post that was directed to you?

And I'm more or less expressing my annoyance with OP's play. He is quite confirmed, so this would be the moment to take risks, to express everything you feel, without fear that town will understand you the wrong way. But what does OP? He is inactive, and comes out with a statement that is little better then a random vote. I want him to talk, to give his reasons, to play this game.

[Ectomancer]

ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree.

Confession to thoughts of sin are not acting out on them. That paragraph was actually a super top classified ultra secret message to Vollkan.

[don_johnson]

don, as town, it is your job to convince us about who you think is scum, or town. Keeping ideas for yourself is not helping.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

Confession to thoughts of sin are not acting out on them. That paragraph was actually a super top classified ultra secret message to Vollkan.

understood. it is what it is.

myk: voting op accomplishes nothing. thats all i have to say on that.

reiterate:

to wit: can someone let me know why our masons claimed? seems kind of a dumb thing to do.

[mykonian]

orto got under some pressure, and he claimed early.

and that vote has maybe no use, but maybe, maybe it helps. At least my vote doesn't just sit around, doing nothing. And don't be afraid, my vote will be back to mrfixij when that is needed.

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

[SpyreX]

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its day 1. there is not much to prove at this point. i find spyrex seems to be more interested in getting a lynch, than in who we actually lynch. no, my case against spyrex is not strong. i haven't read a strong case yet. ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree. orange penguin just voted me because:

Why deadline? Because before this new mess we were hitting a point of stagnation - instead of letting it stagnate, pushing for a deadline forces action.

And, its not "You're suspicious of me, prove it." Its "You're saying you're suspicious of me, explain to me WHY." There's a difference there.

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

this quote defines itself. this is what i mean. this tenacious desire for evidence of what is basically my interpretation of the data. "you seem dodgy". its a statement. your response has been most illuminating.

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

Statements, in this game, need reasons for them - either side of the spectrum.

If I this point I said: "TDC is the most pro-town player we have." and said "Mykonian is very scummy." ... would you or would you not want to know why I thought those things? Or would you just arbitrarily agree/disagree with me?

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

QFT. You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

[don_johnson]

You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

i said you were at the top of my list with others. not solely at the top. i have clarified it to you the best i can and yes, i have gotten what i needed from it.

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said). i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained. i find this to be a waste of our time.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

[mykonian]

don, I think I want you to reread. I will wait with the questions I have until you are on the same point as we are. Then the game can go on like it should (when a few people also want to put some effort in this game...).

[SpyreX]

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said).

i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained.

i find this to be a waste of our time.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

Ok, you officially can not be for real.

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have

no intention

of catching up.
2.) You're saying that lynching the mason is a better outcome than having the masons claim be believed.
--- The masons, believe it or not, are much better sacrificial lambs for NK's as we have already had one other PR softclaim.
--- If the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to been their partner and had a safeclaim.
--- On the other side you were more than happy to fling suspicion on people for saying anything to the claimed masons.
3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy) and then in this post say that:
--- You're suspicions have been explained.
--- Do

exactly

what you were accusing me of as being dodgy.
4.) You've "gotten what you need" from your very bizarre attack on me yet when asked what that could be have, in fact, not even tried to explain it.

SL is still scum and I wont shed a tear if she gets lynched. However:

Unvote:
Vote: don_johnson.

[mykonian]

I agree with you spyrex, but I want don to make an effort to explain himself. I'm not going to vote him yet, I want him to wrestle through vollkans posts, and after that he can finally say something about the game. Just give the replacement some room until he is really in the game. You know this game isn't easy to catch up in.

[don_johnson]

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have

no intention

of catching up.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

2.) You're saying that lynching the mason is a better outcome than having the masons claim be believed.
--- The masons, believe it or not, are much better sacrificial lambs for NK's as we have already had one other PR softclaim.
--- If the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to been their partner and had a safeclaim.
--- On the other side you were more than happy to fling suspicion on people for saying anything to the claimed masons.

interesting how you seem to know what i am saying even though i myself have not said it. lynching a mason is not a better outcome than having his claim believed. once the mason claims you obviously don't lynch them. that would be STUPID. and how are they sacrificial lambs for night kills? do you think mafia are going to nk a mason? why would they bother? by claiming they have now REMOVED themselves from the nk list, leaving mafia less people to choose from in hopes of hitting a more powerful role! if the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to be their partner? that could be addressed as a last ditch effort before the lynch occured: i.e. "go ahead and lynch me but i'm a mason and my partner is X."
i did not "fling" suspicion on "people" for saying anything to claimed masons. i cast suspicion on TDC for inquiring about the entirety of their role. i emphasized it in my post to you because you were pushing a "claimed mason" for more info. i find it interesting how upset it makes you when i mention it. all while not even voting for you

or

campaigning for your lynch.

3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy) and then in this post say that:
--- You're suspicions have been explained.
--- Do

exactly

what you were accusing me of as being dodgy.

funny how you don't produce any evidence other than "i think you're being dodgy now".

4.) You've "gotten what you need" from your very bizarre attack on me yet when asked what that could be have, in fact, not even tried to explain it.

i don't feel as though i ever "attacked" you. i made observations, however unfounded you think they are, and put them up for discussion. you became extremely hostile and have turned this into a campaign to lynch me. i haven't even been able to address anyone else here because you are so bent on being "innocent".

[SpyreX]

funny how you don't produce any evidence other than "i think you're being dodgy now".

3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (

which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy)

and then in this post say that:

Want even more braver concrete examples?

I'm going to compile a small list of the questions I've asked you in the last few pages that you haven't answered.

1.) Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

2.) Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

Again, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

3.) What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

2.) You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

QFT. You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

So, yea, that is really funny.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have

rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia

to choose a night kill from. way to go.

interesting how you seem to know what i am saying even though i myself have not said it. lynching a mason is not a better outcome than having his claim believed. once the mason claims you obviously don't lynch them. that would be STUPID. and how are they sacrificial lambs for night kills? do you think mafia are going to nk a mason? why would they bother? by claiming they have now REMOVED themselves from the nk list, leaving mafia less people to choose from in hopes of hitting a more powerful role! if the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to be their partner? that could be addressed as a last ditch effort before the lynch occured: i.e. "go ahead and lynch me but i'm a mason and my partner is X."

I'm not going to give scum nk ammunition by explaining this in detail, but I want it here so it can be read and understood.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said). i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained. i find this to be a waste of our time.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

Gee, I dont know how I would have got the idea you weren't planning on catching up properly.

That is small in comparison to the sketchy attack (call it whatever you want) that then was followed up by immediately doing exactly what you kept going "he's suspicious" for - with the one key difference of the fact you are actually doing it and I was not.

I didn't vote initially because I wanted to see where it went. Once I saw where it went, well.

I'm not lynching Volk today.

I would happily lynch either SL / DJ.

I am not lynching the claimed masons today.

[ortolan]

orto got under some pressure, and he claimed early.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

OP claimed actually (well, soft-claimed which then elicited TDC attempting to verify the soft-claim with me). I would have been more than happy to see who else voted me, and what reasons they gave. vollkan latched onto me ridiculously hard while trying to still appear impartial, and I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

imo the vollkan wagon needs more passengers, you can fight further amongst yourselves when we see what he flips. Also I can't say I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again.

[vollkan]

And vollkan, both times you use a (negative) word to charactarize the play of an attacker, while you also could have defended without it, as in the first post you defend against the attacker right after you call it ridiculous (see the or in my post? I think if you call a post of spring ridiculous, you could be giving spring a label), and in the second word seems just to be taking one possible explanation, and using that as the truth. Again, why would you use the word conspiracy. While everything you say is thought out, you are using (negative) subjective words to characterize your attackers, and I wouldn't think you above it that you do it on purpose.

Myk, at the risk of being tautological, I called it ridiculous because I think it is ridiculous.

The argument you are, if I am understanding you, trying to make is the "psychological influence" argument - that the use of negative words is a scummy means of discrediting people via ad hom.

I can't repeat myself enough that that is not what I was trying to do. I've been adamant from the outset that the faults in SL and orto's arguments are purely logical. What I am trying to get across, though, is my frustration at being tunnelled on conspiracy arguments. I have had to repeat myself so many times on each issue that I really don't think I am being listened to, and I would hope that some emotional language would get across that I really am adamant that SL and Orto have been pushing a truly atrocious case against me.

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its

Accuser bears the onus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding proof for suspicion.

I just wanted to see how you would react to a vote, since IMO you have flown under the radar. Eh. It was nothing I was going to pursue, but I figured I would give it a go. It'd probably work better if I was more involved, but meh.

unvote,

vote: Don Johnson

.

His reasoning is just off, and strikes me wrong.

I want this vote explained in full. If you think DJ's reasoning is off, to such a degree as to justify a vote, it's incumbent on you to back yourself up.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

No!

The rest of us are in the position of having played for 22 pages. You are potential scum and there is no way in hell that I am giving you a leave pass to skip over the first 22 pages. I scumhunt by analysing logic, and I want to see some logic to analyse. And if you are genuinely interested in finding scum, you have 20 pages worth of debate and discussion to go over.

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have no intention of catching up.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

FFS. You asked to be given a leave-pass not to read the thread. He isn't putting words into your mouth - you made it clear you didn't intend to read up and just wanted to play "in the present" (Note: Another reason that is intolerable is that it would allow scum-DJ to swing any way he wished, given no prior commitments)

Also I can't say I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again

I can.

I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

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

Not Voting - 2 (TDC, don_johnson)

[Ectomancer]

I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

I would have lynched you too.

[SpyreX]

QFT

[vollkan]

springlullaby -

3

(vollkan, mrfixij)

3!

[ortolan]

I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

I would have lynched you too.

are you conceding as scum?