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

[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.

are you conceding as scum?

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]

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

[Ectomancer]

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

You might if you ever intend to be any better at the game

[ortolan]

I am learning to be better at the game, and I no longer take actions which scum like vollkan can exploit as scumtells to place suspicion onto me

[don_johnson]

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.

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.

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

i suggest you speak for yourself, however, if you say "i'm doing to him exactly what he did to me," i will join you in the whole exploding head trick. that argument would also confirm that your vote is vindictive in nature and not based on solid evidence. so please, explain.

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.

yes, lynching a mason would have been bad as much as i dislike your decision. i don't know if you've

really

benefited town, only time will tell that. mathematically i think it will be helpful for town, however, the main detriment i see is that it mathematically helps mafia as well. water under the bridge...

[orangepenguin]

Well, if the mafia target one of us- our only powers are the ability to talk to eachother during the night, then that prevents them from taking out, say, a vig, cop, or doc, if there is any. So us here also could hurt the scum as well, in the sense that there could be more powerful roles out there.You're right though. Time will tell.

[SpyreX]

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

i suggest you speak for yourself, however, if you say "i'm doing to him exactly what he did to me," i will join you in the whole exploding head trick. that argument would also confirm that your vote is vindictive in nature and not based on solid evidence. so please, explain.

If my blase agreement was accepted as ok, then we would all fail. There is no chance of that happening. Especially since, to me at least, what I did was so transparent that if I WERE to just agree I would get called on it faster than I called you on this mess.

There is no way to avoid "accountability" for things I've said - nor should there be. That works every way however.

I am not doing to you at all what you did to me - see, that would be that whole cognitive dissonance I love so much. If I find something scummy I sure as hell am not going to mimic it.

I'll speak for myself, when the time comes.

[orangepenguin]

Uh..

Can we have a vote count?

[ortolan]

Mod: can we have a votecount, and a deadline?

Not enough votes for vollkan atm

[mykonian]

I don't think I would call it a trap, but don hasn't answered anything of those questions I would want to know.

unvote vote don_johnson

and orto, it doesn't help when you say: "we don't have enough votes to vollkan". You have to make people vote vollkan if you are so sure. Give arguments we can see, and that lead to the conclusion that vollkan must be scum.

[ortolan]

I was hoping Ecto would reply to my last retort. I have found all of his last three posts wanting

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.

Why ridicule the suggestion you are scum with vollkan? Seems much more of a viable match-up than other scumpairs or trios I can see.

Then Ecto offers:

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.

Implicit criticism of my play and attempt to undermine my opinions, implicit endorsement of vollkan. All dressed up in apparent apathy. No reasons given? Ectomancer, why would you want to give that impression?

Then plays the newbie card on me:

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

You might if you ever intend to be any better at the game

I never denied being new, especially at the time I first came under suspicion this game (this day has dragged on so long I even now consider myself substantially older and wiser). Do you believe your one-line smartarse replies are assisting in scum-catching this game Ectomancer?

[ortolan]

EBWOP: When I say his last three posts, I mean his last four. Sorry about that.

[mykonian]

orto, after a shaky start, I can't say that I think you play bad. You are much more helpful then OP, TDC, mrfixij on the moment. Good find here above.

[TDC]

Refreshing to see that this game can produce train wrecks without vollkan's participation, too.

don_johnson: Have you actually read through the whole thread now?
If SpyreX was dodging questions and is scummy because of that.. what are you doing right now?

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them

to the best of his knowledge?

Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

mykonian: Which particular questions to don_johnson do

you

want answered?
What happened between "SpyreX, your OMGUS is not helpful" and you voting don_johnson, too, to change your mind?

[mykonian]

I thought I had mentioned that I really had no idea how you could get anything out of the quotes don presented, how that could ever become a case. I wanted him to explain what was so bad about those quotes. And what happened to the omgus bit? it is one strike against spyrex, same counts for the bits I have said against vollkan, I'll remember.

By the way, what do you exactly think about the last page?

[springlullaby]

Announcing VLA coming up dec 20 to janv 2.

Will probably post one big post before going.

[don_johnson]

Refreshing to see that this game can produce train wrecks without vollkan's participation, too.

don_johnson: Have you actually read through the whole thread now?
If SpyreX was dodging questions and is scummy because of that.. what are you doing right now?

i don't know how to stress this enough. i am not the only one to decscribe someone as "dodgy". volkan use the term to fend off an attacker around page ten or so. i stated that spyrex's earlier posts appeared as though he was playing in a "dodgy" fashion, and seemed to be deflecting questions with questions of his own. obviously i did not present this properly, however, upon further reading i found Spyrex's posts more insightful and explained that the case was weak. i have not followed the line of attack you suggest. also, if you read the thread you will see that i am making the best effort i can to answer all questions thrown my way. read post 563.

when this started i simply presented my opinions. i made little effort at turning them into a lynch, as not having read the whole thread, I didn't feel informed enough to vote. i am still playing catch up. i am currently on page fourteen. there are other observations i have made which i have not presented... yet. i feel like Spyrex has launched a vicious attack on me because i turned the slightest eye of suspicion his way. he has built a case around twisting my words.

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them

to the best of his knowledge?

Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar. where have i lied? read post 563. i am in no way "dodging" his questions, only asking that they be presented in a format which i can respond to. i have also pointed which of his questions i haven't answered and why.

mykonian: Which particular questions to don_johnson do

you

want answered?
What happened between "SpyreX, your OMGUS is not helpful" and you voting don_johnson, too, to change your mind?

thank you for pointing this out. Myk's behaviour in this has been ultra scummy. he has not put forward any questions on his own and yet seems to be buddying up to Spyrex. my last post to Myk was this:

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

then he says he didn't get his answer and votes.

i am also very srprised that volkan has not chimed in here. it hadn't occurred to me, but reading through the thread i was surprised how volkan and spyrex piggybacked so quickly from their vote on a mason to voting SL after mr. fixijj placed his vote. they very quietly followed each other from lynch to lynch. it is hard to tell if they were doing it together or if it was one folloowing the other, but they did a good job of distancing themselves because as of page fourteen, noone has mentioned it. i would like to know why volkan has been distant in my argument with spyrex. he originally came out with some support and an accusation of cherry picking, but now that spyrex has done virtually the same thing to me(see his shark tank post), he says nothing. i also inferred that spyrex's reaction to my initial suspicions warranted some pondering and again he has no comment. yet in his own defense (i believe from around post 204)he says,

The tone of the attacks is relevant, in case you missed my reasoning in previous posts, because it shows prejudice.

i have mentioned the tone of spyrex's attacks. they should be relevant. also,

If a player cannot show that they are actually thinking about who is scum, then the most reasonable conclusion will ordinarily be that they are themselves scum.

an "omgus" attack of this magnitude should warrant his attention. either way. why is he distancing himself from this attack on me? if he thinks i am scum then by his own admission he should be jumping in. if he thinks spyrex's reasoning is truly "omgus" then he should be jumping in. is he on vacation?

i am withholding my vote until i am completely caught up, which has been my stance from the start. at this point, though, i feel i have it narrowed down.

[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:

OK, it wasn't the clearest question, but here I really wanted to know what you got out of that series of quotes of yours, and how.

[don_johnson]

sorry, i am realizing the "buddying up " i noticed was addressed by certain players. i will comment later as i read more.

myk: are you serious? that's what this whole discussion has been about. please reread. i offer reasoning behind the whole post. i was posting my

thoughts

. i was put to the task of reading through 18 pages, i couldn't very well quote whole posts into my notes. as it is i already have more pages of notes than there are pages in this thread so i quoted the parts of posts which stood out to me. then i wrote my thoughts next to said quotes to serve as a reminder to me as to my initial impressions of this thread.

it is why i explained earlier that no matter how i present a case it is going to look like "cherry picking", a phrase i am noticing that volkan uses quite a bit. tell me volkan, with the enormous length of your posts and this thread overall, how is one to present

you

with anything that

doesn't

resemble cherry picking?

myk, please reread. if you have a specific question you want answered, or there is a specific quote you would like me to go over and explain then let me know. first you vote a mason(alleged) for "pressure", now you seem to be piggybacking...

[mykonian]

ok, I'll restate my question: What are your toughts with those quotes, what do they tell you?

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them to the best of his knowledge?
Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

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

Now, see, the fact that he didn't answer my

most important

question was very bothersome. The fact that he then compounded this by saying that he did, repeatedly, was a huge push towards scummy.

Once he, himself, started doing the thing he come in accusing me of it was enough for me to push my vote.

Now, why did I do what I did the way I did it?

Simple. I wanted to put forth a situation to, within its own framework, illustrate my problems with this play. His response was exactly what I suspected it would be.

The thought process went like this:

- Ask him, directly, yes or no, if he has answered all of the questions I have put forth.

1.) Put the list of major AND minor questions I have asked in one spot.
--- Include the questions he has actually answered.
--- Include the questions he hasn't answered but has "responded" to.
--- Include the above question, the one I wanted answered more than the others.
2.) Ask for specific reference. This was added specifically to force showing the examples cited to remove the simple "Yes, I did." I had been getting up to this point.

Now, explaining this might be a little convoluted, but I'll give it my best shot.

There were two majorly scummy things I wanted to confirm/deny if they truly existed:
1.) The inability to back away from a stance that, once pressed, could not be held.
2.) Cognitive dissonance.

The above was designed as a "trap" to see if the two were going to hold true. Both did. I designed it with as many "outs" as I could.

1.) Ask the initial question as a simple yes or no. This was, duh, to force the direct answer before even moving forward. The response of yes (hedged, of course), was a definite tell in this - saying yes with the ability to still back out if necessary. I really think this is, of course, because ultimately he knew that there were going to be questions that were unanswered and needed to give himself a way out.

2.) Ask for the examples: not just for my reference if they were answered but to force DJ-town to actually look back at the last 3 whole pages (this mess started on 21) and see if he did, in fact, answer the questions. The scum-response I was expecting? Some form of "I'm not doing this for X". Which is exactly what I got. For the record, the other responses I was theorizing around (as town responses):
- Admitting once examples were asked for that they didn't exist.
- Doing it because DJ-town actively thought I was scum. This would have been interesting because, if I was wrong and they had all been answered, I would have looked the fool.
- Doing those that had been answered, leaving the others for later or explaining how they had been indirectly answered (this would have been fairly neutral/minorly scummy depending in my read).

3.) Put in every reference to the above question I had. This, of course, was to try to trigger the cognative dissonance issue I have. I wanted to be sure it was reinforced as much as it could. I'll put the examples with their answers:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged?

Ever. many

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.

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.

So, why the dissonance?

1.) DJ initially said I was at the top of his scum list (with two others).
--- This implies that I am scum, at this point.
2.) DJ then says that the main reason for this is that I dodge questions.
--- This implies that dodging questions put forth is scummy.
----- Scummy enough that it would move someone to the top of a list.

So, from this the natural extension is that dodging questions IS, by nature, scummy.

If that is the case, why repeatedly do it? If DJ was town he would have either 1.) backed these accusations when asked in such an easy format because, by nature, it would have strengthened his case or 2.) saw that they truly hadn't been answered and, again, moved away from the argument. Logically, the one thing he wouldn't have done (as he himself says it is scummy) is dodged the questions.

This is exactly what he did.

Hence, my case was built. I just needed to explain it in full.

[SpyreX]

NOW, for the other developments on this page:

i don't know how to stress this enough. i am not the only one to decscribe someone as "dodgy". volkan use the term to fend off an attacker around page ten or so. i stated that spyrex's earlier posts appeared as though he was playing in a "dodgy" fashion, and seemed to be deflecting questions with questions of his own. obviously i did not present this properly, however, upon further reading i found Spyrex's posts more insightful and explained that the case was weak. i have not followed the line of attack you suggest. also, if you read the thread you will see that i am making the best effort i can to answer all questions thrown my way. read post 563.

when this started i simply presented my opinions. i made little effort at turning them into a lynch, as not having read the whole thread, I didn't feel informed enough to vote. i am still playing catch up. i am currently on page fourteen. there are other observations i have made which i have not presented... yet. i feel like Spyrex has launched a vicious attack on me because i turned the slightest eye of suspicion his way. he has built a case around twisting my words.

1.) What would Ecto finding me dodgy (when, after reading that whole extension quickly wasn't the issue) have to do with your opinion as you presented it? "Someone else saw/did it too!" is not a validation.

2.) Your opinion, as you first presented it, was that I was scum. I, of course, am going to refute this.

3.) L2Read is not a valid defense.

4.) What words have I twisted and how?

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar. where have i lied? read post 563. i am in no way "dodging" his questions, only asking that they be presented in a format which i can respond to. i have also pointed which of his questions i haven't answered and why.

1.) Interesting or not, the questions that were impossible to construe as rhetorical that needed to be answered were not. Why?

2.) How was that situation no-win? If you thought it was directly a scum-trap, why did you answer at all?

3.) If you now say there are questions you haven't answered, why when I asked did you say you had answered them all?

And now for the little maelstrom (not quite cows in the eye of the storm, but):

thank you for pointing this out. Myk's behaviour in this has been ultra scummy. he has not put forward any questions on his own and yet seems to be buddying up to Spyrex. my last post to Myk was this:

i am also very srprised that volkan has not chimed in here. it hadn't occurred to me, but reading through the thread i was surprised how volkan and spyrex piggybacked so quickly from their vote on a mason to voting SL after mr. fixijj placed his vote. they very quietly followed each other from lynch to lynch. it is hard to tell if they were doing it together or if it was one folloowing the other, but they did a good job of distancing themselves because as of page fourteen, noone has mentioned it. i would like to know why volkan has been distant in my argument with spyrex. he originally came out with some support and an accusation of cherry picking, but now that spyrex has done virtually the same thing to me(see his shark tank post), he says nothing. i also inferred that spyrex's reaction to my initial suspicions warranted some pondering and again he has no comment. yet in his own defense (i believe from around post 204)he says,

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.

So, I am consistently scum in your readings. Ok. Is this still under the basis that I am dodgy? Or is it my case on you? Or, do you think I am scum still?

However, we now have Mykonian and Volk as scum for buddying up with me (or me buddying up with them <3 Volk).

In your reading have you found anything new with TDC and SL?

[SpyreX]

OHH GOD TRIPLE POSTU

I can't believe I missed this one before.

have to go to work. these are my top three. i would be comfortable with any of them at this point. please respond.

So, wait a second... you have said, more than once, that you just wanted to find out more about me when you replaced in

but you would have been comfortable with my lynch?

Really?

[mykonian]

to summarize, he dodged questions while he said it was scummy (I think it is).

but I think he weakened the vote on you, when he said the case on you was close to nothing. He hasn't answered, but can he? This whole wall you present, with beautiful words in it, is it that great? Are we accusing scum that picked a wrong target and get's caught now, or do we have not that experienced towny with little reread time, that get's caught in this game, like it happened with orto.

On this moment, I am not sure, but I hope we have scum here.

It is a shame the other persons that I attacked in the last days aren't here to react. Hello vollkan, mrfix! Would you care to react?

[Ectomancer]

I was hoping Ecto would reply to my last retort. I have found all of his last three posts wanting

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.

Why ridicule the suggestion you are scum with vollkan? Seems much more of a viable match-up than other scumpairs or trios I can see.

Pure crap. First off, this isnt ridiculing ANYTHING.This is clarifying that I dont want to lynch Vollkan for being verbose AND points out to Vollkan that the previous statement was direct towards him. Secondly, your statement is flat out WRONG. Could you read the game? Is it any wonder that I criticize you? Read the

bolded

part and then explain to me where in the hell you got that statement above.

Those big posts with the red in them are killing me to have to read. It makes it hard for me to figure out who you are talking to, and I think sometimes you forget to put in the [red]red[/red] and so then I have to try to figure out who is talking in that section.
There are some good points I think you have, from what I was able to discern of it.

I wanted to restate that you are correct, there is nothing that could prevent myself and Vollkan from being scumbuddies. Just because we had a big argument doesnt mean anything in terms of our alignment. Alot of it was just theory talk anyhow. But, there is also nothing that could prevent us both from being town, or just one of us being scum.
I realize that you were just trying to make sure that players did not get into the mind set that Vollkan and I could not be partners, but I also dont want them to get into the mindset that we

must

be partners, or that either one of us should be lynched from simple fear of that possible scenario.

Then Ecto offers:

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.

Implicit criticism of my play and attempt to undermine my opinions, implicit endorsement of vollkan. All dressed up in apparent apathy. No reasons given? Ectomancer, why would you want to give that impression?

This isnt implicit endorsement of Vollkan, this is a plain statement that your play sucked.

Then plays the newbie card on me:

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

You might if you ever intend to be any better at the game

I never denied being new, especially at the time I first came under suspicion this game (this day has dragged on so long I even now consider myself substantially older and wiser). Do you believe your one-line smartarse replies are assisting in scum-catching this game Ectomancer?

[/quote]

Playing the newbie card? How about I jumped your case for dismissing input on your quality of play? How about I want to see you improve? How about I'm afraid that you will be alive in endgame and my win will be dependent upon your play? Glad you think you are much wiser. Let's assume you are town. That gives you no better insight into who is scum and who is not. The only advantage you have right now is that you probably know OP's alignment

and that is it.

It doesnt make me anymore likely to follow you unless you build a solid case, and you aren't doing that. Understand?
As for my oneliners finding scum? They are doing something equally important, which is to prevent YOU from lynching on a crappy case. If you want people to follow your lead, build a better case and stop crybabying. "You don't like my case, you're defending my target!!"

No, I'm pointing out that you CAN'T use the fact that Vollkan wanted to lynch you as evidence that he is scum. The REASON you can't is because at least 1 TOWN player thought you were scum and WOULD LYNCH YOU.

FYI, you aren't proven town, so arguing from the vantage point of being confirmed town isn't going to fly. Lucky for you, OP was believable in his breadcrumbing prior to the claim, but that's all it is, is believable.

Now, you need examples of crap play? How about this one?

Dont ask for a deadline when you haven't even addressed the cases presented!!!

What the hell are you and Spyrex doing?

Why did you ignore my case on Mykonian and yet ask for a deadline? Didn't Vollkan accuse you of being tunnelvisioned? Don't you realize that this is a perfect example that makes his point? I thought you weren't going to allow Vollkan to back you into a corner? In this case the corner is your exclusive focus on Vollkan himself. You aren't a cop, so pardon me if I don't take your word too seriously.