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

[vollkan]

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?

What do you mean?

[SpyreX]

The point is, were it not for the claim, you would have been lynched. It wasn't just Volk, or even just Volk and Ecto, it was more than that.

[ortolan]

were it not for vollkan I wouldn't have to wade through so much text to post something without looking suspicious, so that's not true

it is the same phenomena we are observing with don_johnson now

[vollkan]

Yes, Orto, it's all my fault

[mrfixij]

Alright. I'm looking back through what I've missed. First off, wading through vollkan posts at two in the morning is painstaking. Secondly:

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.

This is doublespeak. No, your statement about me was not subjective, but it was also not objective. At least not objectively justifiable. You're saying something feels "odd" about my play. I don't know how you could be saying something was odd about me without an indication as to my alignment while still remaining pertinent to the game.

That's a big issue I'm having with you vollkan. For chrissakes, you've gotten into numerous arguments with Ortolan, who is the closest thing we have to confirmed town. What's the purpose of it? To convince him to vote with you? To satisfy your own personal lust for an argument? I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees in front of you.

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.

And this is an example of your personal analysis falling flat on its face. During the day phase, the ONLY difference between scum and town is intent. Scum wants to lead a lynch towards town, Town wants to find the outsiders and lead a lynch towards them. As an individual player, your actions are used to find your intention, and by correlation your alignment. If you discourage speculation about your intentions, you discourage speculation about your alignment.

If your entire gameplan is centered around finding reactions to your behavior, then read this reaction.

unvote: Spring
Vote: Vollkan

Although I am not a fan of the terrible play by both of our masons (were they not all-but-confirmed-town, they'd be at the top of my lynch lists.), the fact that you argue extensively with Orto on page 18 over fundamentally nothing strikes me as curious. In fact, out of your thousands and thousands of words, most posts seem to be self-important and arguing for the sake of arguing, not scumhunting. Particularly once you start growing an ego around pages 17-19

[vollkan]

This is doublespeak. No, your statement about me was not subjective, but it was also not objective. At least not objectively justifiable. You're saying something feels "odd" about my play. I don't know how you could be saying something was odd about me without an indication as to my alignment while still remaining pertinent to the game.

It isn't doublespeak.

I haven't once said anything regarding your alignment that is dependent on that post, nor have I allowed that "feeling" to influence my opinion of you. I can dissociate my feeling about somebody from my opinion about them.

That's a big issue I'm having with you vollkan. For chrissakes, you've gotten into numerous arguments with Ortolan, who is the closest thing we have to confirmed town. What's the purpose of it? To convince him to vote with you? To satisfy your own personal lust for an argument? I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees in front of you.

The purpose is to defend myself. I am not trying to being egotistical or self-important, but a slew of trashy attacks have been made against me and I am going to defend them off. In the process of defending myself, I've been very clear about what I find suspicious. It's simply nonsense to say that I am doing nothing but post verbosely.

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.

And this is an example of your personal analysis falling flat on its face. During the day phase, the ONLY difference between scum and town is intent. Scum wants to lead a lynch towards town, Town wants to find the outsiders and lead a lynch towards them. As an individual player, your actions are used to find your intention, and by correlation your alignment. If you discourage speculation about your intentions, you discourage speculation about your alignment.

Thankyou for taking my post completely out of context. I was responding to this by Orto:

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

Orto pulled one narrative for my conduct out of his arse - assuming, without any explanation as to why, that I could have no motivation other than wanting to sneakily imply something.

I have never once said, and I do not think, that intentions are at all irrelevant. On the contrary, I've been clear that analysing intentions is very important BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER COMPETING HYPOTHESES.

It is completely wrong for Orto to conspire about what my intention was unless he takes a holistic view of my actions.

[don_johnson]

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?

this is a wall of questions i believe i actually have answered. here you go

again

asking for further and further clarification. i already conceded that i don't have much of a case against you. i explained that what i read lead me to

believe

certain things. you don't agree. also, this:

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

and this:

I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

and this:

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

sound like rhetorical questions to me, why would you add these in here? to make your case look bigger? does that make it stronger?

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

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

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.

true, and if you reread my post i NEVER said i WASN'T going to continue reading, i merely stated that i wanted to be able to play in real time so that i wouldn't fall further behind. so far i haven't found any previous committments made by the player(s) i replaced and my interaction with spyrex has taken on a life of its own. i

can

swing any way i wish. why would that bother you?

[don_johnson]

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

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

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

Hmm, wasnt so short after all.

so i wasn't the only one who noticed this after the first five pages.

[mykonian]

and be happy guys, claiming mason day one stops us from mislynching twice. Not only for scum the players they have to choose from became smaller, also for us. So don't be that harsh on orto, don.

[don_johnson]

and be happy guys, claiming mason day one stops us from mislynching twice. Not only for scum the players they have to choose from became smaller, also for us. So don't be that harsh on orto, don.

not trying to be too harsh, i just don't know if i would have done the same. claiming mason is different than claiming

and

outing your mason partner, but as i continue to read i am seeing how it came to be.

myk: is there something i am seriously missing in the thread, or are you piggybacking on spyrex's unfavorable view of me based on your "gut"? in other words, why are you so convinved that spyrex is town? or is it that you simply find my posting scummy? you

have

threatened to vote for me.

[mykonian]

I didn't get the answers I want on the questions, and that makes you normally a vote. However, you are special, being a replacement, so take your time to read everything, and then come up with a good case. Then, maybe I'll vote you, if it isn't to my liking.

[don_johnson]

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

[SpyreX]

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

You're doing it again. The fact you don't see it pains me.

this is a wall of questions i believe i actually have answered. here you go again asking for further and further clarification. i already conceded that i don't have much of a case against you. i explained that what i read lead me to believe certain things. you don't agree. also, this:

I'm really glad you've highlighted the agains, since it proves MY point. You've said I am dodgy. I have asked why. You have opted to not give me the answer. I asked why again. You say you have answered it. I say you have not. The ball is in your court once

again

.

If you have answered those questions show me where you have answered them because I do not see it.

sound like rhetorical questions to me, why would you add these in here? to make your case look bigger? does that make it stronger?

Umm, no. Allow me to reorder said questions so you can not pretend they are rhetorical.

1.) Given my "dodgy play", when you do not respond to my questions what reply could you have gotten from me other than my, again, asking for clarification?

2.) What did you "get" from your case on me that exempts you from, again, answering my questions?

3.) What reasons do you have to say I am only interested in getting A lynch versus actually lynching people whom I find scummy? Have you actually caught up with this game (because if you have I definitely can not understand this statement)?

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

Now, if it was a "list of feelings on players" that is one thing. You came in with, instead, a case on me. You said I was your top suspect and you even gave reasons why. Now, when those reasons were brought to light for discussion (or to refute), you instead pish-posh it away AND say that you have answered what has been asked. You have not.

Also, don't pretend that there is a new case based on how I responded. I was even handed the first round through when I was curious if these were legitimate backed concerns or something more sinister. When you didn't give me answers I even asked again. Now, however, the time for leniency has passed.

I find the way you presented this case to be scummy (but in and of itself it could have been misinterpreted). I find the way you have responded to my questions of it scummier. I find the fact that you are doing the same things verbatim that you are finding such fault in scummy enough to push it over the edge.

Hypocrisy, thy name is you.

so i wasn't the only one who noticed this after the first five pages.

Again, your example illustrates something. Probably not what you were hoping for, but it does.

Ecto and I, well before that post, did have discussion about those selfsame things. We in fact questioned AND replied to each other.

No where did we accuse each other of dodging nor anything else and, when questioned, opted not to back out of it.

In fact, the very next post after the one you quoted as trying to show me being "dodgy" is my reply (and the last major reply from either of us to that little tryst).

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is only one major similarity (with different outcomes) between this exchange and ours now. I asked for an answer, Ecto gave one. Even though I didn't agree with it, it was given.

You have not.

[don_johnson]

Umm, no. Allow me to reorder said questions so you can not pretend they are rhetorical.

1.) Given my "dodgy play", when you do not respond to my questions what reply could you have gotten from me other than my, again, asking for clarification?

this question is baseles as it

presumes

that you have asked questions which i have not answered. we disagree on the particulars of this exchange. if you have any real questions please ask them and i will answer them.

2.) What did you "get" from your case on me that exempts you from, again, answering my questions?

your hostility speaks volumes. your desire to not only to clear your name from my list, but also to lynch me and remove me from the game. pretty harsh considering i already conceded that my case was not strong and was based on a general feel i got from reading the first five pages of this thread. i have not said i am exempt. why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

3.) What reasons do you have to say I am only interested in getting A lynch versus actually lynching people whom I find scummy? Have you actually caught up with this game (because if you have I definitely can not understand this statement)?

mainly, it is your desire to place a deadline. you have all rambled on for 22 pages, whats a few more if it can give us a better educated consensus of who is the best lynch? i find this to be unsettling as i always understood deadlines to be the responsibility of a moderator. in answer to the second part of your question: no, i am not completely caught up. looking through each page takes a considerable amount of time considering the amount of wifom arguments i am coming across where someone insists they are right. i am trying to measure out my time accordingly to also keep up to date with the here and now. other than that i would have to find and quote the few posts which gave me that feeling, but

again

, i have clearly stated that i do not have a strong case against you and that as i do read further your posts become more insightful.

Now, if it was a "list of feelings on players" that is one thing. You came in with, instead, a case on me. You said I was your top suspect and you even gave reasons why. Now, when those reasons were brought to light for discussion (or to refute), you instead pish-posh it away AND say that you have answered what has been asked. You have not.

this is funny. out of all my notes from the first six pages i have you at the top of my scum list with TDC and springlullaby.

you have misread. you were at the top of my scum list WITH TDC and SL. not alone. please ask more questions and i will answer, it is actually helpful when you number them.

Also, don't pretend that there is a new case based on how I responded. I was even handed the first round through when I was curious if these were legitimate backed concerns or something more sinister. When you didn't give me answers I even asked again. Now, however, the time for leniency has passed.

I find the way you presented this case to be scummy (but in and of itself it could have been misinterpreted). I find the way you have responded to my questions of it scummier. I find the fact that you are doing the same things verbatim that you are finding such fault in scummy enough to push it over the edge.

i am not pretending. the way we handle ourselves in the face of adversity is a large part of this game(at least in my eyes). you find my presentation scummy. fair enough. you have voted. i don't think i'm doing the same things as you. Myk hasn't asked me any questions, he has just been standing behind you to, i guess, add pressure? i asked him to reiterate the questions he wants answered. you gave me what i believed to be rhetorical questions. we disagree on that point but it has been addressed above.


my example of Ecto's post was to simply show that someone had "similar" feelings about you at the same time that mine developed. what happened after said post is irrelevant to the point i am making. i am not trying to show you as scummy with his post, only to show that someone in the game at that point was getting the same thing off of you that i did. reading on after that has been helpful and i will continue to do so.

[SpyreX]

this question is baseles as it presumes that you have asked questions which i have not answered. we disagree on the particulars of this exchange. if you have any real questions please ask them and i will answer them.

Ok, since you

presume

you have answered all the questions I put forth, we're going to take a different track to this:

(This is a yes or no question)

Have you answered all of the questions I have presented to you at this time?

your hostility speaks volumes. your desire to not only to clear your name from my list, but also to lynch me and remove me from the game. pretty harsh considering i already conceded that my case was not strong and was based on a general feel i got from reading the first five pages of this thread. i have not said i am exempt. why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

My hostility should speak volumes because cordiality wasn't getting the job done. I dont care about

your

list. I care about the fact you have put a case forward that, unless I really dont know how to play this game, could have led to a lynch. When pushed saying it isn't a strong case does not

change the fact

it was presented as a case.

mainly, it is your desire to place a deadline. you have all rambled on for 22 pages, whats a few more if it can give us a better educated consensus of who is the best lynch? i find this to be unsettling as i always understood deadlines to be the responsibility of a moderator. in answer to the second part of your question: no, i am not completely caught up. looking through each page takes a considerable amount of time considering the amount of wifom arguments i am coming across where someone insists they are right. i am trying to measure out my time accordingly to also keep up to date with the here and now. other than that i would have to find and quote the few posts which gave me that feeling, but again, i have clearly stated that i do not have a strong case against you and that as i do read further your posts become more insightful.

The deadline was asked for because we had, until you decided to do this particular avenue of discussion, reached a wall of obstinate players on multiple sides (myself included).

The deadline is the natural method to break said cold war. Notice, duh, I have not mentioned it since you came in because now there is a new avenue of discussion worth pursuing for the time being.

Clearly stating that is isn't a strong case does not change that you brought it up as a case. Which we are going to get to in more detail in a second.

you have misread. you were at the top of my scum list WITH TDC and SL. not alone. please ask more questions and i will answer, it is actually helpful when you number them.

I said a case on me. The fact you have two others on the top of your SCUM LIST does not alter the fact you chose to pursue me. As you said I was on the top of your scum list (with other players) AND chose me as your case the logical conclusion is that you think I am scum.

i am not pretending. the way we handle ourselves in the face of adversity is a large part of this game(at least in my eyes). you find my presentation scummy. fair enough. you have voted. i don't think i'm doing the same things as you. Myk hasn't asked me any questions, he has just been standing behind you to, i guess, add pressure? i asked him to reiterate the questions he wants answered. you gave me what i believed to be rhetorical questions. we disagree on that point but it has been addressed above.

This is not adversity, believe you me. This is:

1.) Replacement decides to post.
2.) Replacement gives a case on me.
3.) I have questions about said case.
4.) Said questions aren't answered.
5.) Replacement says said questions were answered.
6.) My head explodes.
7.) Replacement starts doing the same things that his "case" on me is built around.
8.) Replacement says he's not, still doesn't answer questions.

my example of Ecto's post was to simply show that someone had "similar" feelings about you at the same time that mine developed. what happened after said post is irrelevant to the point i am making. i am not trying to show you as scummy with his post, only to show that someone in the game at that point was getting the same thing off of you that i did. reading on after that has been helpful and i will continue to do so.

And my response is apples != SR 71 Blackbirds. The feelings aren't similar, the play wasn't similar and the context sure wasn't.

"Someone else thought so too!" is normally weak. "Someone else thought so too!" when they didn't is just bad.

Feel free to ignore most of this if you need to. What is in bold, if not answered in the next post, should be enough for me to get you lynched.

[don_johnson]

Have you answered all of the questions I have presented to you at this time?

yes, to the best of my knowledge.

My hostility should speak volumes because cordiality wasn't getting the job done. I dont care about your list. I care about the fact you have put a case forward that, unless I really dont know how to play this game, could have led to a lynch. When pushed saying it isn't a strong case does not change the fact it was presented as a case.

when were you cordial? you should care about my list. my "case" on you was not intended to lynch, but to find out more about you, which i have.

I said a case on me. The fact you have two others on the top of your SCUM LIST does not alter the fact you chose to pursue me. As you said I was on the top of your scum list (with other players) AND chose me as your case the logical conclusion is that you think I am scum.

chose to pursue? you forced my hand with your persistence, i have earlier stated that i would be glad to expound on my notes surrounding the others on my list. i ALSO stated that the only reason i had not done so in my initial post was due to time constraints. i did not choose you because i think you're scum, though you are making a good case here yourself.

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

I questioned your motivations for your actions. I

pressed on you (when Vollkan wasn't in the way defending you) and it took 4-5 pages for you to finally spit out that your issue was a turn of phrase from my 2nd post.

(unmentioned before then except a vague "You've been aggressive" or "you attacked him strongly") This is something that I could have explained to you on my 3rd post. No, instead you let it ride, or didnt even notice it back then, but found it when you needed a case? Then ignore Vollkan's responses in all of your references back to me.

You then take only my posts to try to back up your case.
Do you know what context is? The context of his posts is what garnered the aggressive talk, not the self-vote.

Now, you've been talking about this 'strongly' forever, but only when hard pressed can you come up with something solid to be addressed.

Then, rather than concede there could possibly be different interpretations of a phrase used on page 1, you forge on stubbornly with your accusations.

All of this smacks of someone who established a prejudice, and has gone about it for so long now, that you were forced to go back and cling to whatever you can so that you can hope to have an actual case. Revisionist history is what they call it I believe.

Hmm, wasnt so short after all.

what don't you understand?

[SpyreX]

when were you cordial? you should care about my list. my "case" on you was not intended to lynch, but to find out more about you, which i have.

When you first came out with this?

chose to pursue? you forced my hand with your persistence, i have earlier stated that i would be glad to expound on my notes surrounding the others on my list. i ALSO stated that the only reason i had not done so in my initial post was due to time constraints. i did not choose you because i think you're scum, though you are making a good case here yourself.

I forced you to only do me because I, in fact, found problems with your case?

what don't you understand?

What that has to do with anything we're talking about?

BUT, now on to the show:

yes, to the best of my knowledge.

Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls. Lets play...

LYNCH

ALL

LIARS

The game today is very simple. We're going to display a list of questions that have been asked up to this point. DJ has the perilous task of quoting the responses.

CAN HE DO IT? I hope so, otherwise he goes in the shark tank.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

For the record, I'd like to see the replies and the posts in which the replies to these very specific questions I have asked.

Some have been answered, but some sure as hell haven't. So, lets see how you do good sir.

[don_johnson]

sorry, i must have missed the post where you were placed in charge of lynching. also, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence makes it a question. anyone can do that? yes. that doesn't mean its a good question.

i would like to know if everyone else is having trouble understanding why i quoted Ecto's post. you see, we are arguing semantics. "dodgy" can mean any number of things and i am beginning that to think that you and i have different ideas of what it might mean. sure you can refer to a dictionary, but the interpretation of a person's play and the words used to describe them seem to always end up with multiple meanings.

yes to the best of my knowledge. it means that i feel i addressed all pertinent questions.

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?

answered

Quote:
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.

answered

Quote:
Again, why did you leave out what you did.

why should i answer something twice?

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

missed this. please give me the context and i can answer it.

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

out of context, can't answer, not sure if i did, but probably ignored this as this was my point with you. i say,"you're scummy because x." you say, "again, why am i scummy?"

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

not answered. already answered once, why should i have to answer it again? goes back to the point i was originally trying to make about your "dodginess".

Quote:
What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

many

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

how? by posting it. Why? because it is pertinent to the game. what kind of answer were you hoping for?

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

did not answer. this is a set up question with an obvious answer. rhetorical, if you will.

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

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

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

rhetorical and baiting. why would i answer?

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

this is not a question. it is a request.

Quote:
What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

thought we covered this one twice already. this circles back to my original point.

i feel like if you saw this conversation from a distance you would see me standing on the right speaking calmly, and spyrex wildly gesticulating his arms as if fending off imaginary blows in some crazy new style of kung fu. what is your point? how am i scummy? because i admittedly brought up a weak case? did I vote? did I ask others to lynch you? i wouldn't be doing town any service at all without voicing my opinions and spurring discussion.

[don_johnson]

ebwoop: sorry, but i'm not your quote monkey. build your own case.

[SpyreX]

Its built.

I don't think, after that, I really need to say anything more on the matter. I'll just let the others go ahead and read up and make a judgment.

Excellent work on "Please cite examples and give where they were answered" - I didn't ask you to do that for my own amusement. I asked it to clarify my issue with all of this.

You've done exactly what I expected and reaffirmed exactly why I found you scummy.

So, lets see what the others think.

[don_johnson]

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

[mykonian]

I will look this mess over tomorrow, loads of time then. First observation on don is way from strong. I thought he had answered almost nothing, There is no case on spyrex, that is clear to me. To me it seems don came with a series of quotes that should show that spyrex is scummy. Most of them came from first pages (didn't check this).

However, Spyrex, what are you doing here? We don't get far when you vote the person that attacked you for making a case with weak reasons. I know you are going to fight this, but this is OMGUS. "your case on me sucks, vote: X". It is not like you made a case on him. You just don't like his play against you. This is not very constructive.

[orangepenguin]

and be happy guys, claiming mason day one stops us from mislynching twice. Not only for scum the players they have to choose from became smaller, also for us. So don't be that harsh on orto, don.

not trying to be too harsh, i just don't know if i would have done the same. claiming mason is different than claiming

and

outing your mason partner, but as i continue to read i am seeing how it came to be.

myk: is there something i am seriously missing in the thread, or are you piggybacking on spyrex's unfavorable view of me based on your "gut"? in other words, why are you so convinved that spyrex is town? or is it that you simply find my posting scummy? you

have

threatened to vote for me.

In the first game I ever played on the site, excluding newbie games, the mason outed himself AND his partner on page 1, in basically his second post. They almost made it to end game. The game resulted in a tie, because the mafia (which I was in) were amazing (my personal bias), but the masons claiming day 1 only resulted in a lot of policy discussions, and stuff. We didn't kill the mason because the doctors would've protected them day 1, and we only lynched one of them because the Godfather sent in the kill without the rest of our consent.

In my case, I pretty much had to out ourselves, because we both were playing poor, and would've been lynched. I figured the best solution was prevent a mislynch, and save both of us, in the 50% chance that the mafia decide to kill a mason tonight. (my percent isn't accurate at all). Not claiming would've put the town in a really bad position, I think.



...I wrote this about a half an hour ago, but forgot to press submit. Oops.

[SpyreX]

This is not OMGUS. There is a reason why I did what I did exactly how I did. A "trap" of sorts if you want to call it that.

I will see if someone can see it. It really is obvious.

[mykonian]

sorry. My eyes are half closed now. I will look at it tomorrow.