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

[vollkan]

and just to repeat:

I am at L-1

[TDC]

I'm not willing to hammer you.
From what I can tell, neither SpyreX nor Ecto want to do that either.
So, I guess the ball is in orto's court on whether you should claim or not.

--

Ecto: When do you plan to reveal your gambit? I have trouble understanding what it was supposed to achieve.

[mykonian]

you haven't done that, it was just an example of what I learned as subjective on school.

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

And yes, I see a certain pattern: nobody that attacked you wasn't attacked by you. You didn't care about my play throughout the whole game, no big accusations, but now I attacked you, you find a weak point I made, the statement above, and after a few posts, you come to the conclusion that this is not a good point against you, and that I pressed it too hard. It is not more then normal to declare that my case sucks, and see, you have managed to put me in the defensive. This of course with the vote included. I'm not the first, and everytime it happens again, vollkan. Let's see what the others do (although I admit I didn't know you were already at L-1).

[don_johnson]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)

am i the only one here who feel that this is an insane request? you have shot your own argument against me in the foot. let me guess your response:

"please explain this more."

there is no accusation here. fact= you are being hypocritical.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

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

vollkan - 5 (mykonian, don_johnson, orangepenguin, mrfixij, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (ortolan, TDC)

Vollkan is at L-1, 1 vote away from a lynch.

I want to know whether it would be a good idea to replace Springlullaby.

PM

me if you have something to say, and I am planning on allowing her her role back when she returns.

[mykonian]

sorry vollkan...

I would have hammered you...

unvote

before I ask the mod the question:
how can don have to unvote if he isn't voting anyone? And what happened to orto's unvote. I think I remember he did that somewhere.

Correct, don_johnson hasn't voted anyone so he doesn't need to unvote. This has been corrected in the latest vote count.

You are correct about ortolan's unvote. This has also been corrected.

The last thing we need is someone lynched by mod-mistake.

[Ectomancer]

I'm not willing to hammer you.
From what I can tell, neither SpyreX nor Ecto want to do that either.
So, I guess the ball is in orto's court on whether you should claim or not.

--

Ecto: When do you plan to reveal your gambit? I have trouble understanding what it was supposed to achieve.

Probably endgame. I understand where the trouble comes from. If you'll bear with me though, I think it should work out. I might be able to talk about it earlier if it fails. If you want to create a case based upon it, not much I can say except please build your cases on other material. The tree is planted but might not bear fruit, and definitely wont if I tell everyone where the tree is.

[SpyreX]

(This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.
3.) You

seem

to be a lying scumball. Does that change the revelance? Are you now not allowed to question it because I have phrased it as my feelings?
4.) Yea, considering you put him at l-1 before you bothered to explain yourself, its a bandwagon. Your vote is relevant - your little list isn't. The fact that you didn't vote for me doesn't alter anything in what you were saying to me - much like spewing out a crap case and admitting it was crap doesn't alter the fact you did it.
5.) YES HURF DURF IT ADDRESSES YOU THATS WHY I SAID AS AN ASIDE AND AS THAT ISNT ANYTHING YOUVE EVER MENTIONED WOAH IS ME SUCH A LIARBOT HOW DID MY RUSE GET CAPTURED SO SWIFTLY.

@Volk:
You might as well claim. The mountain has pushed against you and, well, we know they're not going to move.

If you are actually scum I still think you played a good game and are getting hung based on nothing. However, I'm pretty damn sure you're town.

@Mykonian:
In the spanse of one page you gave your list of who you thought were scum, had a few normal conversations then flipped entirely to HAMMER VOLKAN. Yea.

Unvote: Vote: Mykonian.

Seriously.[/mech]

[mykonian]

did I freakin know that I could have hammered him? I only knew spring, orange and don were on. I absolutely didn't like how he set me up, after I pointed out the facts I didn't like about him. Pressure was at least needed, that he could not do everything, and so he knew I would look him closely on those kinds of plays. Look how he cleverly uses the fact that I make one weak statement.

and in my defense, even vollkan didn't know it was the hammer. I admit, L-1 is quite a lot pressure, and don still deserves my vote much more seen his play in between the myko-vollkan conversation. He only makes empty statements.

Plz don't think I wanted to lynch vollkan. Well, I felt like it after he voted me, but it is not like he is close to being as scummy as don.

[mykonian]

don_johnson - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (don) (still juls´s random vote, I guess)
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 2 (vollkan, spyrex)
springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 0 ()
vollkan - 3 (mrfixij, OP, spring)
SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

noone - 4 (ecto, mykonian, orto, TDC)

What I think the votecount is now. With don on, vollkan's count would be good, but there was no chance I could have hammered vollkan. Mod, plz look good at those votecounts, you have cost me a few years of my life.

[don_johnson]

(This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.

this is all subjective. i have swept nothing under the rug. i apologize if your logic frustrated me, but you were(are) attacking me over a weak case, completely diregarding whether or not i voted, the fact that i admitted it was a weak case, and the fact that i produced evidence that the behavior pattern i called you on was also picked up by another player during that same time period in the thread.

3.) You

seem

to be a lying scumball. Does that change the revelance? Are you now not allowed to question it because I have phrased it as my feelings?

not sure what you mean by changing the relevance, but when you say "seem" i am not expecting hard evidence. just like volkans "gut" feeling on fixijj. seem in no way implies factual backing. yes, i may question it, but condemn you for it, no.

4.) Yea, considering you put him at l-1 before you bothered to explain yourself, its a bandwagon. Your vote is relevant - your little list isn't. The fact that you didn't vote for me doesn't alter anything in what you were saying to me - much like spewing out a crap case and admitting it was crap doesn't alter the fact you did it.

everyone runs gambits. i wanted to see reactions.

I DID NOT PUT HIM AT L-1

. that was mykonian. i wanted to make the point that my voting pattern should be relevant. the fact i didn't vote for you should be relevant in that i listed you as one of my top suspects at that point in the game which i had completed reading. i didn't come in half cocked gunning for your lynch without all the facts, i merely found it interesting that someone on my list was calling for a deadline.

[vollkan]

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

You're making no sense.

Firstly, and most importantly, you believe him. Then you could believe him. And now we are back to believing.

Secondly, strawmanning is not a subjective play. I am getting the distinct impression that you are just labelling everything you don't like in my play as "subjective" in order to make it seem like I am being hypocritical.

And yes, I see a certain pattern: nobody that attacked you wasn't attacked by you. You didn't care about my play throughout the whole game, no big accusations, but now I attacked you, you find a weak point I made, the statement above, and after a few posts, you come to the conclusion that this is not a good point against you, and that I pressed it too hard. It is not more then normal to declare that my case sucks, and see, you have managed to put me in the defensive. This of course with the vote included. I'm not the first, and everytime it happens again, vollkan. Let's see what the others do (although I admit I didn't know you were already at L-1).

Nice drawing of a false equivalence there. I haven't made any major attacks against you, no. I have certainly disputed you a lot throughout the game, but you were never as scummy as SL or Ortolan. That in no way means that I "didn't care" about your pay.

And, yes, I have railed against my attackers a lot. As I have already said, this is because I think the case against me sucks and is scummy.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)

am i the only one here who feel that this is an insane request? you have shot your own argument against me in the foot. let me guess your response:

"please explain this more."

there is no accusation here. fact= you are being hypocritical.

You accused me of cherry-picking and hypocrisy. I got you to identify a post: 658. I got you to identify the "hypocrisy" - which was me allegedly cherrypicking after attacking others for it.

Now, I want you to specifically identify the cherry-picking. I don't think that's at all unreasonable of me.

I'm not willing to hammer you.
From what I can tell, neither SpyreX nor Ecto want to do that either.
So, I guess the ball is in orto's court on whether you should claim or not.

--

Ecto: When do you plan to reveal your gambit? I have trouble understanding what it was supposed to achieve.

Probably endgame. I understand where the trouble comes from. If you'll bear with me though, I think it should work out. I might be able to talk about it earlier if it fails. If you want to create a case based upon it, not much I can say except please build your cases on other material. The tree is planted but might not bear fruit, and definitely wont if I tell everyone where the tree is.

Hmm...This is different to the sorts of gambits I run. I do something fairly unfavourable, get reactions, then claim gambit and people can see my reasoning. Here, you have done something unfavourable, gotten reactions, claimed gambit, but refuse to let us see your reasoning. I know that you might well be genuine here, but it really does put the rest of us in an untenable position. You have done something which some have objected to, and claimed it was a gambit, leaving us all in a lurch as to: 1) What your actual opinion is; and 2) What the rationale for your gambit was.

This is what I am going to do for now: I am not going to insist on an explanation, for the simple reason that, by and large, you haven't been suspicious. If things do take a turn for the worse, though, I will push to see full disclosure from you.

@Volk:
You might as well claim. The mountain has pushed against you and, well, we know they're not going to move.

If you are actually scum I still think you played a good game and are getting hung based on nothing. However, I'm pretty damn sure you're town.

I don't think so. Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing. OP will very likely unvote as well, in keeping with his role as masonic sockpuppet. I don't think SL or DJ will be unvoting. Ixfij might unvote.

We have the numbers to achieve a lynch elsewhere, so there is no need for my claim. I'm not even at L-1 anymore, because Myk unvoted.

did I freakin know that I could have hammered him? I only knew spring, orange and don were on.

If you were aware of Orto's unvote, which I was so I suspect you were probably also, then you would have known that you were putting me at L-1. Ixfij's vote has been on me for some time, so I cannot see how you could have missed it.

I absolutely didn't like how he set me up, after I pointed out the facts I didn't like about him. Pressure was at least needed, that he could not do everything, and so he knew I would look him closely on those kinds of plays. Look how he cleverly uses the fact that I make one weak statement.

It's not "one weak statement". The arguments you made repeatedly misused terminology (OMGUS, strawman, subjective); you repeated the conspiratorial "vollkan insulted orto to manipulate us" line, and then, topping it all off, you flip-flop over the whole strawmanning thing.

This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.

this is all subjective. i have swept nothing under the rug. i apologize if your logic frustrated me, but you were(are) attacking me over a weak case, completely diregarding whether or not i voted, the fact that i admitted it was a weak case, and the fact that i produced evidence that the behavior pattern i called you on was also picked up by another player during that same time period in the thread.

There is nothing in Spyrex's post which can be called "subjective". Calling someone a liar is NOT namecalling if they do lie. And his description of your actions is, again, objective - you did backpedal by relying on the word "seems".

The fact you didn't vote and the fact you admitted weakness are immaterial.

not sure what you mean by changing the relevance, but when you say "seem" i am not expecting hard evidence. just like volkans "gut" feeling on fixijj. seem in no way implies factual backing. yes, i may question it, but condemn you for it, no.

No.

Very slippery move here. When I gave a gut feeling on Ixfij, I simply said that I felt something was odd and I repudiated that it was affecting me.

You, in contrast, said that:
"Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions". You detail a specific perception of specific conduct, which it turns out you have no evidence for.
and all indications were that you were not sidelining it as a subjective feeling.

My ixfij point is in no way similar to this point here.

[don_johnson]

You accused me of cherry-picking and hypocrisy. I got you to identify a post: 658. I got you to identify the "hypocrisy" - which was me allegedly cherrypicking after attacking others for it.

Now, I want you to specifically identify the cherry-picking. I don't think that's at all unreasonable of me.

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

There is nothing in Spyrex's post which can be called "subjective". Calling someone a liar is NOT namecalling if they do lie. And his description of your actions is, again, objective - you did backpedal by relying on the word "seems".

his opinions are subjective. he

thinks

i lied. i did not backpedal on the word seems. as far as i can tell i did not backpedal at all. i put forth my notes. there was discussion as to what they meant, and i have presented exactly what it is they meant. Ecto's post confirmed that i was not the only person who read spyrex as "dodgy" over the first six pages or so. the word "seems" is extremely relevant here. and it is extremely paralleled to your ixfijj comments. you just choose to dismiss it.

The fact you didn't vote and the fact you admitted weakness are immaterial.

i thought it was irrelevant? now its immaterial? sorry, but i believe votes carry considerable weight. we will have to agree to disagree. i brought my case to halt a deadline and spur discussion.

[ortolan]

Ok guys I'm making a cherrypicking post here.

Firstly, vollkan re: Post 712, I don't like the way you use the term "scummy" in this:

Now, if Orto is mason, then, yes, he has been doing his job by scum-hunting. Make no mistake about that. BUT the arguments he has adopted are scummy.

I would prefer if you said "playing badly for town". Using "scummy" in such a general way is not helpful if you could express a more specific meaning (i.e. you are considering the possibility I am indeed a mason but even then you don't think my arguments are correct, or helping town).

I will say on the "subjective" point people keep throwing at you and you keep denying, as I was the first to bring it up: I believe I observed in your play a tendency to make arguments, and when people respond to them, repeatedly, deconstruct and re-interpret them, and transform them to fit the archetypes of logical fallacies etc. You have clearly shown an ability to do this ad nauseum. I know from experience that one can do this to any series of words perpetually, "right" or "wrong" as they appear to be. And I really don't feel your positions have been rooted in solid footing any game, or there is any evidence that they come from a townie perspecitve (don_johnson made this observation earlier). Indeed, the fact your posts are long but so far have given us no verifiable evidence either way of your alignment or propensity for catching scum this game, yet you continue to insist you are in the "right" in whatever arguments happen to be being made is somewhat scummy to me. You said yourself of the game in which you were scum that you were happy to rebut arguments against your predecessor because they were extremely poor. However this just strengthens my point that propensity in debating or even supposed use of "logic" makes you no more likely to be town. So what if the town caught scum using "bad logic", they still caught scum. If the town can catch scum consistently using "bad logic", then I would argue in fact it's not bad logic.

2) focus is reasons not results.

Why?

If anything I don't like your increasing use of pejorative, frustrated language (which I already commented on)- it's not useful and the fact you go out of your way to express it so much I almost consider a mild scum-tell. See

t would be more accurate to say that he continued throwing bullshit at me until some of it hardened.

Useless.

Ad hominem is where you say somebody's argument is crap because they are stupid. (or any other insult)
Ad hominem is NOT where you say somebody is stupid because their argument is crap.

People can be swayed by insults as they can be by arguments, even if you supposedly present the insults as independent of the arguments. They have no place though if you're genuinely trying to pose sound arguments.

I was pissed off by the slew of stupid arguments he was making and kept repeating and needed strong language to voice that in the hope that it would make you people notice.

Your interpretation of my actions is valid, but put yourself in my position: If you had had to repeatedly deal with the same arguments again and again, whilst having a load of new subjective claims thrown at you, wouldn't you begin to want to let people see that you were annoyed.

In essence, what you are saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay less attention to Orto. What I am saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay more attention to me - not to the exclusion of Orto, mind you, just so people might think "You know, vollkan is angry, so maybe he has a point and we should take another look".

I had exactly the same experience arguing with you- I found it extremely frustrating. You never concede anything and continually re-interpret/modify your position. Again you fit the whole device of "angriness" in- it has no meaning, really, why should people care if you are angry? I stopped arguing directly with you because it was going nowhere and clearly we were forever talking at cross-purposes. Either way, nothing was going to happen, SpyreX was still going to love your every word and sl was clearly still going to call for your lynch.

On the whole mason thing:

There was a lot of discussion between Ecto and vollkan about whether to believe the claims OP and I made. While going into great detail they, surprisingly, seem to have ignored the substantial circumstantial evidence supporting our claims. Contrary to what I believe Ecto suggested earlier, the _only_ explanation of our actions is that we are masons, or we are scum together. We can't simply be vanilla townies- verifying each other would be cheating. Likewise we can't be a team of SKs by definition. Remember that scum can't daytalk. Thus we would have had to have come up with the scheme to claim mason before the game. This patently contradicts the suggestion we "cooked up" the scheme to take the pressure off us in light of badly placed votes. If instead you think we spontaneously decided to claim masons, then you have to explain OP bread-crumbing the role, and me acting perfectly consistently with being a mason in response to TDC's question at the time. So really, I don't see how you can claim the odds of us lying are great enough to justify testing our claim, especially in light of the extreme likelihood our claim will be vindicated by whichever deaths occur.

In my eyes, the conduct of OP and yourself would be lynchworthy, but for your claims.

This is a silly thing to say because our conduct partly results from the fact we are masons to begin with. For the record, as I have already said, OP's minimal posting style is 100% consistent with his town-meta. You argued against "policy lynches" of yourself earlier, but this is exactly what you are advocating in OP's case. Furthermore, in my case, I was Newb at the time of my early play in this game (probably still am). This is evidenced by my registration date. Why does neither of this get factored into Ecto and your own decision theoretic calculation of whether our claim should be tested?

Also,

Apparently vollkan has a reputation for being good at this game. In light of this I find his dogged argumentation extremely perplexing. The points he argues with don_johnson are both extremely subjective and convoluted. They aren't good scumtells, they're just vollkan being blatantly nitpicky to a point which benefits no-one. It's not just don_johnson he's done it with this game either.

I do recall reading in mafia discussion a comment that mafia is, or should be more a psychological guessing game than one which worships "logic". I find vollkan's persistent adherence to a skewed conception of logic and an almost deliberate effort to tunnel in his arguments rather than think of alternative explanations for others' behaviour as something he would only do as scum.

Best argument you've made this game.

You've never commented on whether you agreed with it or not. And please explain what was with your gambit with voting OP etc. For the record I can understand Ecto's position on me and OP to some extent- after all he was the one we initially voted with crummy reasons.

This improves your pro-town ranking in my eyes. Or, more accurately, it seriously weakens one scum interpretation I had of your actions: the risk that you were exploiting your gambit to try and eliminate me.

This is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen

vollkan; I also don't like how much effort you are going to prove how you're "always this argumentative". Does this mean you bring up your meta in every town game to prove this?

Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing.

No, as I said, the way you answered my arguments made me want to vote you more. However rather than descend into an infinite regress I decided to move my attention and focus elsewhere.

I don't like how vollkan got away from that lynch without claiming. I bring your attention to him refusing to claim on L-1 in the aforementioned game in which he was scum, again. Even if he is a power role I am almost inclined to think the benefits of actually being able to trust him in light of the claim outweigh the exposure to scum the claim would bring.

mykonian, you seem to have done a bit of an about-turn on vollkan since as recently as Post 619, in which you actually express affection for one of his posts. Recently you seem to have picked up my point about vollkan's style of argument, but before that I didn't see any evidence you agreed with me- I recall posts along the lines of "vollkan is very intelligent" etc. What changed your opinion of him?

[vollkan]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

If it is evident, then show me where I cherry-picked and strawmanned. Quotes please and explanation.

his opinions are subjective. he thinks i lied. i did not backpedal on the word seems. as far as i can tell i did not backpedal at all. i put forth my notes. there was discussion as to what they meant, and i have presented exactly what it is they meant.

No. You said that Spyrex "seemed" to be dodging questions and suspicions. That simply wasn't true. When you were challenged, you flip and say that "seems" is just a weak word and doesn't need evidence. Any person who read that would see you accusing Spyrex of evading, but it gives you an out to say: "OH NO! I Wasn't accusing him of that, I just subjectively felt that was what he was doing."

the word "seems" is extremely relevant here. and it is extremely paralleled to your ixfijj comments. you just choose to dismiss it.

I have dismissed it because, as I showed before, there is no parallel. I like that you don't even quote my argument and just assert I am wrong.

I would prefer if you said "playing badly for town". Using "scummy" in such a general way is not helpful if you could express a more specific meaning (i.e. you are considering the possibility I am indeed a mason but even then you don't think my arguments are correct, or helping town).

I will continue to call them "scummy". My view is that you are most likely bad town, but your arguments themselves, detached from you personally, are scummy.

I will say on the "subjective" point people keep throwing at you and you keep denying, as I was the first to bring it up: I believe I observed in your play a tendency to make arguments, and when people respond to them, repeatedly, deconstruct and re-interpret them, and transform them to fit the archetypes of logical fallacies etc. You have clearly shown an ability to do this ad nauseum. I know from experience that one can do this to any series of words perpetually, "right" or "wrong" as they appear to be. And I really don't feel your positions have been rooted in solid footing any game, or there is any evidence that they come from a townie perspecitve (don_johnson made this observation earlier). Indeed, the fact your posts are long but so far have given us no verifiable evidence either way of your alignment or propensity for catching scum this game, yet you continue to insist you are in the "right" in whatever arguments happen to be being made is somewhat scummy to me. You said yourself of the game in which you were scum that you were happy to rebut arguments against your predecessor because they were extremely poor. However this just strengthens my point that propensity in debating or even supposed use of "logic" makes you no more likely to be town. So what if the town caught scum using "bad logic", they still caught scum. If the town can catch scum consistently using "bad logic", then I would argue in fact it's not bad logic.

Then what you are accusing me of is abusing logic, not subjectivity. And, I'll repeat myself, my play here is not any different to my play elsewhere. I have been forced to be especially theory-explaining here, more so than I can recall in the past, but that's to be expected given that it is my theory perspectives which have come under so much fire.

The town were lucky in that game. I can't put it any more bluntly than that. The case on my predecessor was absolute rot founded on lies and igorance of her meta. Then I got dragged down by baseless suspicions.

2) focus is reasons not results.

Why?

Town can reasonably push the lynch of town. A person on a townie's lynch is by no means necessarily scummy - the question is looking at their reasons for being on the wagon. Thus, the mere result should not be the focus.

There was a lot of discussion between Ecto and vollkan about whether to believe the claims OP and I made. While going into great detail they, surprisingly, seem to have ignored the substantial circumstantial evidence supporting our claims. Contrary to what I believe Ecto suggested earlier, the _only_ explanation of our actions is that we are masons, or we are scum together. We can't simply be vanilla townies- verifying each other would be cheating. Likewise we can't be a team of SKs by definition. Remember that scum can't daytalk. Thus we would have had to have come up with the scheme to claim mason before the game. This patently contradicts the suggestion we "cooked up" the scheme to take the pressure off us in light of badly placed votes. If instead you think we spontaneously decided to claim masons, then you have to explain OP bread-crumbing the role, and me acting perfectly consistently with being a mason in response to TDC's question at the time. So really, I don't see how you can claim the odds of us lying are great enough to justify testing our claim, especially in light of the extreme likelihood our claim will be vindicated by whichever deaths occur.

The breadcrumbing does support your claim. Let me be clear about that.

I didn't "ignore" it, though. All it would take is for, pre-game, the two of you to agree to move to a mason claim when placed under heat/ for you to spot the breadcrumbing and play along. And, of course, if you are day-talk mafia, then it becomes trivially easy.

This is a silly thing to say because our conduct partly results from the fact we are masons to begin with. For the record, as I have already said, OP's minimal posting style is 100% consistent with his town-meta. You argued against "policy lynches" of yourself earlier, but this is exactly what you are advocating in OP's case. Furthermore, in my case, I was Newb at the time of my early play in this game (probably still am). This is evidenced by my registration date. Why does neither of this get factored into Ecto and your own decision theoretic calculation of whether our claim should be tested?

Uh...I have never once advocated a test lynch of either of your, or a policy lynch. The only lynch I have advocated is a potential suspicion lynch in the future, which I have been clear I do not think present evidence justifies.

vollkan; I also don't like how much effort you are going to prove how you're "always this argumentative". Does this mean you bring up your meta in every town game to prove this?

Not in every town game. There's no need for me to meta-justify myself unless my style comes under criticism.

Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing.

No, as I said, the way you answered my arguments made me want to vote you more. However rather than descend into an infinite regress I decided to move my attention and focus elsewhere.

So, not at all? As in, I was still your no. 1 suspect even when you unvoted?

I don't like how vollkan got away from that lynch without claiming. I bring your attention to him refusing to claim on L-1 in the aforementioned game in which he was scum, again. Even if he is a power role I am almost inclined to think the benefits of actually being able to trust him in light of the claim outweigh the exposure to scum the claim would bring.

I've already explained my position on claiming - they are an "any last words thing".

Do you want me to claim now?

[mykonian]

I mainly restated my view on vollkan like I also tried to express in isolated post 72, after the trap business, where I also didn't agree. And it is true, those were minor point against him, so nothing big.

But in that whole post, I make a weak point, and vollkan manages to move that within a few post to make that vote-worthy, thereby pushing me in the defensive, and trying to make us forget what the rest of the post was about. I simply don't agree with such play, as it is scummy.

[SpyreX]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

This is the same load of crap I got from you over and over again. If its so obvious, why not hmm, just maybe, show it?

Give the damn examples.

"Ohh hey other people totally saw it so.." So what? Show it. Give the factual exact reasons for your choices. You refused to do it with me and you're appearing to start the sharade again.

Unvote, Vote: DJ.

[/mech]

[vollkan]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

This is the same load of crap I got from you over and over again. If its so obvious, why not hmm, just maybe, show it?

Give the damn examples.

"Ohh hey other people totally saw it so.." So what? Show it. Give the factual exact reasons for your choices. You refused to do it with me and you're appearing to start the sharade again.

Unvote, Vote: DJ.

[/mech]

<3

[mrfixij]

Time for me to offer my opinions.

First off Vollkan. I still think you're scummy. But I think the point which I considered you scummy for before is less relevant now. That point being the incessant arguing and attacking of Ortolan after his mason claim. As it is now, I'm starting to be a bit more sure in my suspects. You're starting to break down a little bit in your play. I don't know if this is a result of the accusation and increasing pressure upon you, or a frustrated backlash to play from the rest of us that you deem as unsuitable and poor. Either way could be interpreted as scummy, but is more a nulltell than anything.

unvote: vollkan

I've still got my eye on you, but as was demonstrated in Iceman mafia, you're a really damn hard read. It takes a strong push on sometimes objectionable grounds to get you lynched one way or the other.

Don Johnson: Spyre was pushing pretty hard on you. However, I like your willingness to respond, but not the inability to respond to everything. However, I think your issue was that you decided to start throwing out thoughts and answering questions before you had caught up with the entire thread. If this was a result of additional knowledge outside of the thread's contents (scum) is uncertain. However, this haphazard approach means you're either enthusiastic town or overconfident scum. I'm leaning towards town ATM. What does strike me as odd about your entire role is that you're still on OP after a supposed random vote 30 pages ago.

Ectomancer: You pushed for a lynch on a claimed mason. You PUSHED for a lynch on a CLAIMED MASON??!!? This is long past the stage in the game where a policy lynch is allowable, but that's absurd. Right now you're in the stage after a gambit which yielded borderline results. As it is, I don't think you're a safe lynch for today, just based on what I could read. regardless of your idea of lynching a claimed mason. I think I have a good read on your "gambit" It seems like a heavy use of premeditated circular implications that only confuse anyone who reads it.

Last but not least. Mykonian: You've been a little jumpy recently, after I caught up in my reading. You vote for OP in your 75th post after he claims mason for his logic being "off". Right after in your 80th post you say that the mason claim is a good thing because it prevents 2 mislynches. Those two seem contradictory. Yes, you explain it a little in post 76, but it's weak and saying that it's okay to take risks because he's confirmed town. In the same timespan, you threaten to vote for Don, then back off and ask Spyre what exactly his case is. Right after, you decide to finalize your threat that you just second guessed and vote for DJ based on spyre's case that you didn't see two posts ago. Keep in mind that you accused me of doing the same thing with Spyre's case against spring.

Myk's post 86 is back to questioning what spyre's case is while STILL FOLLOWING IT WITH HIS VOTE ON DON. Then in your 90th post, having not mentioned me in 15+posts, you say you're busy with me, and shift your attention (but not your vote) off Don.

As I look through your posts, each one seems to be moderate suspicion against a different target. With Spring and TDC nowhere to be found recently, you seem to be ignoring them awfully well.

Last but not least is your vote on Vollkan. This is not OMGUS. This is an obvious countervote. And even worse, you put him at L-1 with this countervote just because you're frustrated with the way he's playing. I don't know if you've ever played with Vollkan before, but he's frustrating. This doesn't mean that you should let his actions goad you into a nonthinking vote.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that of Vollkan and Myk, at most 1 is scum. And mykonian's recent actions and indecisiveness are making him more scummy.

vote: mykonian

[mykonian]

the OP vote was an reaction on the bad post from OP. The vote meant nothing, it was to resemble OP's post.

And is it so weird I am on don? He is the scummiest player in this game! He has voted twice, and both times he can barely get a case together. I asked Spyrex about the OMGUS character of his vote, but I can see the scummiest player of them two, can't you? And you are not sneaking away from my attention. That is what I mentioned, but again, you are not close to being as scummy as don.

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

And eh, indecisive? I think I've been very clear that my vote will be on don, at the end of the day.

[don_johnson]

And is it so weird I am on don? He is the scummiest player in this game! He has voted twice, and both times he can barely get a case together.

don_johnson has voted once. i never voted for spyrex. i have actually tried to make that quite clear in my posts. plus, i am experienceing with volkan what several other players have already in this game, which is his circular logic and frustrating play. his constant demand that i explain my explanations and continually repost my evidence is exasperating. at least spyrex was making a point with me and driving my case into the ground. volkan is just avoiding the issue.

post 658: italicized is subjective material. these are opinions you present as facts. they are opinions.

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false.

Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1)

Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.

2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3)

Whether or not you voted is meaningless.

If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

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.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple:

it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

And I find it incredibly scummy of you that you would point the finger at Spyrex by saying he boxed you into a "no win situation". News flash:

The situation was "no win" because of your own refusal to answer at first instance. It's entirely your fault.

Spyrex is in no way to blame for highlighting your sins.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

Nowhere have I said that every use of the term "strawman" has to be fully explained at first instance, but it has to be explained if asked. Now, when I accused you of strawmanning Spyrex my reason was fairly simple. Spyrex posted one thing (a post containing scumhunting), which you instead cherry-pick from and, rather than attacking what Spyrex actually said,

you attack a fantasy-post of your own creation.

I hate you guys so much right now.

<3

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

]

1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is: Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.
2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.

3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.

bolded is the statment you "cherrypicked". here is the original post:

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

by only quoting and responding to the first sentence with subjective opinions you are misrepresenting my point of view. hence: strawmanning.

@ myk: your votes have been all over the board. if you intend to leave your vote on me then i would like an explanation besides, "because i believe spyrex". spyrex has his reasons, and though i disagree with them and am exhausted by talking with him and volkan, his reasons at least resemble having validity.

[mykonian]

Nice following on mrfix, don! A pity I already answered the issue of my use of my vote. As long as you don't have any objections to that answer, I would like you to stop accusing me of it.

That has been your problem all the way don: loads of accusations, but little proof. You try to get a case on spyrex together, but it looks like nothing, and gone you are again. You build a case on vollkan, but again, you have trouble getting examples and proof together. Is it weird I think you are the scummiest player around? Has nothing to do with spyrex, just the fact that we reacted both almost as fast on your weak opening. So stop accusing me of that, and don't do it yourself.

[don_johnson]

i never launched a "case" against volkan. i only recently described anything he has done as "scummy". i voted to prove a point and the subsequent discussion has led to me offer "evidence" of his hypocrisy(which i have, if you've been reading). my vote was a gambit. i did it to prove the relevance of votes themselves. heres a little of my theory:

day 1 of a mafia game is full of almost entirely wifom arguments. there is usually nothing but subjective arguments all around. opinions are all we see, and opinions are, by definition, subjective. there are a very few things which can actually be tracked and quantified in the game of mafia. the main one being voting patterns. i believe analyzing voting patterns to be one of the purest forms of scum hunting. you all may think i am dumb, or a newb, for my presentation of my findings, but one of the main reasons i post is to spur discussion. it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

call it what you will, but fixijj is one of the few who seems to have been paying attention to what has been going on around the central arguments of this game. kudos to him. my stance on voting has been consistent from my first mention of it.

unvote

.

[SpyreX]

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

For spurring discussion?

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing?

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

[don_johnson]

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

For spurring discussion?

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing?

short answer, yes. you have facts which you

believe

prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

worst is an extremely subjective term, and again, nothing is absolute on day 1. i personally believe that voting patterns are the most likely area where scum slip up. for instance, why do people notice bandwagoning? it is not necessarily a scumtell, but a pattern of bandwagon votes with no "evidence", or "weak evidence" produced to back them can be a good indicator of a player trying to simply work towards "a lynch" and not necessarily the "best lynch".

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed. i have only unvoted in order to further avoid the chance of volkan being hammered without due process.(i believe he was still at L-2). his circular logic(however subjective it may be of me to believe), still has him on my radar. my issues with volkan revolve around the fact that he is unwilling to admit that he may be wrong about

anything

. he refuses to concede any ground no matter who he is debating. that is troubling to me.