Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[dejkha]

/confirm

[dejkha]

This is blasphemy! And only one person can pay for it! And that person is...

Vote: Empking

[dejkha]

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

[dejkha]

Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do,

Did everyone purposely ignore that part of my post or is it just a coincidence that everyone missed it?

Spolium, you hopped on an opportunity to vote very quickly and on something quite minor and I love your reasoning as to why. That reasoning being... "I was all like TIMMEH"

Vote: Spolium

Consider it OMGUS if you want, it don't bother me none.

[dejkha]

Mod

: Sorry. I forgot to

unvote

up there^

[dejkha]

If you are of the opinion it's not the right thing to do then why suggest it? Why did you feel inclined to get poeple's opinion on the matter?

Quote me on where I suggested it.

At this point I would think your more upset that spoilum voted for you rather than the fact that he voted for "something quite minor" He is the only one so far that has really given any reason for voting. What is there out there that isn't minor at this point to vote for?

Like I said, it don't bother me none.

I personally didn't notice that part either, but it doesn't change the fact that you brought it up, for essentially no point. Especially this point in the game.

I mentioned why I brought it up. You seemed to have missed a few parts of that post.

[dejkha]

Timmeh?

Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do,

Did everyone purposely ignore that part of my post or is it just a coincidence that everyone missed it?

Neither. If I were scum testing the water I'd likely throw down a similar disclaimer, I think. Haargh.

Spolium, you hopped on an opportunity to vote very quickly and on something quite minor and I love your reasoning as to why. That reasoning being... "I was all like TIMMEH"

TIMMAAAAA

Actually, the reasoning was a reference to the episode where Jimmy is taking steroids to cheat in the special olympics, Timmy catches him, realises something is up, then

...Jimmeh.

The point was that I saw reason to be suspicious, and I clarified this seperately from the reference explained above. As such, I especially dislike how you've painted said reference as my sole reasoning for the vote in order to justify your own.

As for voting based on something "quite minor", what can I say? If only the majority of D1 cases were built on minor tells, then my vote might not be so super suspicious.

Heh... haaargh, jibarooTIMMAHR

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Rather than you voting on something minor, it was... silly, I suppose. I wasn't justifying my reason with yours, only supporting it.

[dejkha]

And bringing up the subject is suggesting it.

So you're saying if I randomly said, "I don't like butt sex" that means that I'm suggesting we all do it? An odd example, I know, but it gets the point across. I'm sorry, but that was a very wrong statement on your part.

[dejkha]

How is that not suggesting it? Sure you phrase it as a question at first but by the end you say are saying what could it hurt since we have all already assumed what 1 person is. Yet you back track by saying that you aren't saying it's the right thing to do. Nothing you say is solid so that if you are voted or attacked for it, you can say "nah ah cause i put this tiny disclaimer in there"

Why would I say anything solid about something when I'm unsure of it? No really, I'd like to know.

Now once again what is your actual opinion on nameclaiming?

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter, so I'm against it.

[dejkha]

For one you never said you were unsure of it, asking people's opinions and asking poeple's advice are two separate things. Secondly usually people put their own opinion in when they ask a question like that. Because now it appears you are only against it because everyone else is.

Why did you feel it was important to clarify the situation at that juncture? It's not like we were stuck for conversation yet since the game had only been open what a day?

Why would I ask if I had an opinion on it? I'll be honest, I'm getting tired of arguing this, so if people want me lynch for this, then I'll just go ahead and claim now to get everyone of my back sooner, so we can concentrate on something that will get us somewhere.

And depending on if everyone else seems to be as close minded as nonny, I may or may not change my vote to her.

[dejkha]

Is that a yes to my claim? Or is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them. If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

[dejkha]

Oh I am scumhunting. And you and nonny really seem to pushing this, so you can bet I suspect you both. You more than her BTW and for more reasons than one. Buuuuut, none of which I'll say now.

[dejkha]

Why the jumpiness?

I'd just rather not waste time on an otherwise pointless subject. And I'd rather not anyone else either.

Sorry if I have had a lack of activity lately. iPod/computer issues. iPod posting is no more:(

What has really stuck out to me is dej's apparent liking of char claims.

Dej, what makes you think it's not a big deal?

I never said I don't think it's a big deal.

Yes, if you randomly said "I like buttsex," that would definitely make me think you secretly liked it and were trying too hard to deny it. To quote Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much." If you bring it up, you're at least giving it credence as a legitimate idea. And you didn't even say you "didn't like" it, you just refused to say that you DID like it, which is different.

I could understand that, but I never used the example "I like buttsex".

So rather than claiming, I'm just not gonna bother talking about it. I got my answer and I have no more to say on the subject.

[dejkha]

No. Not yet. I don't know when either, so don't ask.

[dejkha]

My thoughts on that post are that you didn't understand what I meant in the post that was a response to.

[dejkha]

No, that post proved you didn't understand. Or at least didn't care to show that you did.

[dejkha]

Wow, so now I'm close-minded

and

an idiot? TIMMAH!

If you say so.

Tell me, dej - and please be as honest as possible - when you read #71, do you get the impression that the writer holds a completely neutral stance on butt sex? Would your opinion of them change if they vehemently denied even being interested in the idea once everyone else rejected the idea?

No, it doesn't seem very neutral, but when I used the butt sex example, I didn't put it in that same situation. I merely said if I said out of nowhere "I don't like butt sex", which apparently means, to everyone else, that I support it. Besides, the question doesn't have a right answer. If I say yes, nothing changes and if I say no, then everyone will be questioning me further on the subject and why I don't understand how what I said is the same thing.

[dejkha]

God, I can't believe we're talking about butt sex XD

And, yes I know I brought it up.

[dejkha]

Still wondering your opinion on name claiming.

Well then, someone hasn't been reading.

Until the town is done with the subject it is on the board. You can't just wipe it away because you are getting unwanted negative attention over it.

I'm not wiping it away. I think rather than being on a board, it's a on a piece of paper. I threw it away and you are all digging through the trash right now and I'm sitting on the bench waiting until you decide you're not gonna find it.

We've seen all we need to for a few people on the subject, so when I flip town, there'll be a nice amount to come back to. Besides, I'm not gonna waste my time explaining when you clearly don't want to hear it and won't see it any differently anyway.

[dejkha]

I've already explained, but as you've just proven, you don't want to hear it, so I won't bother to try and explain further.

[dejkha]

Timmeh.

How have I "proven" that I don't want to hear it?

If you're prepared to respond to

the case outlined in post 93

then I'm all eyes. I'd prefer it if your response was clear, concise and identified any posts to which you refer in your defence.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.

You proved it by saying I didn't explain, which I did. My explanation being, I asked a question without suggestion. If you all took it the wrong way then oh well. It doesn't matter what it looked like I implied, because I didn't. But I can't answer questions about a suggestion that I didn't make.

BTW, what's 'NC'? Does it have another meaning other than 'Night Choice'? People are using the term and I don't think 'Night Choice' would fit right in how they're using it.

Okay dejkha, howsabout a compromise? You don't have to respond to my entire wall o' suspicion (unless you

really

want to); the following questions encapsulate my main concerns.

1. You've said, following the near-unanimous rejection of a nameclaim, that you are against it too. Can you further elaborate on this? What in particular stands out as the best reason to not do it?

2. Do you stand by the declaration that you had no stance on a nameclaim in this game, when you suggested it in post 38?

3. Having conceded that

Butt Sex Metaphor v2.0

"doesn't seem very neutral", would you concede that your post 38 doesn't come across as very neutral either? If not, why not?

4. Do you think that a vote for reasons you deem to be "silly" necessarily suggestions that the voter is scummy? Why?

5. Refer to post 67 - can you explain the "apparently", and "as far as I can tell" in the context of your knowledge concerning the success (or lack thereof) of your reply to Rest "going through"?

6a. With regard to post 70 - you stated that "

depending on if everyone else seems to be as close minded as nonny, I may or may not change my vote to her

". How would the close(or open)-mindedness of others affect whether or not you change your vote on a particular player?

6b. What did you mean by "I may or may not change my vote"? Have you yet decided on whether you would change the vote to her based on your answer to question 6a?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

8. Butt sex

8. Why are you witholding your "scumhunt" information?

1. Rest's reason stands out the most to me, when she said, "In South Park, just about every character has turned antagonist at least once, plus theme games in general just work better when scum have protections against NC, so we should probably assume that's the case here."

She's right about the characters, a lot of them have had different sides. Certain ones like Cartman or Mr. Garrison, would be able to be scum but seem town.

2. Yes. I brought it up because you repeatedly were saying "Timmeh" and no one seemed to care. At the time I didn't know about PR's, given that I've never played in a game with them yet (as far as I know).

3. No, because the situation included people not caring that you seemed to be giving your role away. I don't think the butt sex metaphor is the same as the real statement I made.

4. I thought since it was silly, you might've just been jumping on it to attract attention to someone else, but apparently everyone felt the same way.

5.It might've posted it and I just didn't see it. That's a terrible thing to bring into a case BTW.

6a. If anyone understand what I said, I'd probably change my vote since she seemed to be pushing the case the hardest. If nobody knew what I meant, then obviously it's more likely a matter of opinion on how much she believes in her case.

6b. Since I have not, I'm not going to.

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

8. Because at this point it's about the discussion that has been going on and since everyone is on the same side, I won't say it until I know everyone won't counter it.

[dejkha]

Name Claim

Oh yes, of course. Thanks.

If you explained it throughly then I wouldn't keep asking about it and wanting you to show your opinions on the subjects.

I can't make it any clearer or straightforward than "I wasn't suggesting it", so if you don't understand after that, then you won't understand any other way I say it.

So basically you wanted to OMGUS vote but only if other poeple saw that I was "pushing" you? And you don't want to offer other information incase anyone will counter it? Eager to please much?

Nope

[dejkha]

See the initial question in the post. It wasn't rhetorical.

[dejkha]

Dejka, you mean you brought up nameclaiming on page what 2, because one person had an obvious name assocaited with them due to a PR? Have you ever played a game with a mass nameclaim before?

I haven't actually, but I'm aware of the effects. No one made mention of Spolium saying "Timmeh", so I didn't know if it would have a huge negative effect since someone was doing it so obviously. And like I said, I haven't played in a game with PR's, so I didn't know that could've been it.

[dejkha]

That actually makes sense. If you could have said that earlier instead of getting defensive it would of been better. Now that you know other peoples opinions on nameclaiming, what do you think of it?

Also, nameclaiming usually doesn't take place till atleast day two. Never seen it earlier in my experience. Hence I did/do not understand why it was brought up so early.

I said before that I'm against it, because people gave reasons as to why it would be bad (which is all I asked in the first place).

But if it's a valid point, why would EVERYONE counter?

It's a valid point if you understood what I was saying (the post I made that started all this) and since everyone seemed to be on the same side of not knowing what I meant, no one would deem it valid.

[dejkha]

Yes, I know. Quote error.

[dejkha]

Right you said you were against it based on what

other people

said. I want to know why in your own words you now think it's a bad idea? It can be based on what others said, but what convinced you that it would be bad?

Cause like I said right now it looks like you are just trying to follow the majority in everything.

Since everyone pretty gave every reasons as to why it's bad, I said before that Rest's reason seemed to make the most sense.

Everything? What does in look like I'm trying to follow in the majority other than the name claim issue?

[dejkha]

You don't want to vote unless others will agree with your reasons.
You don't want to give your suspicions on others (me and spoilum) unless others are "openminded"
Really you don't try to say anything unless others will agree with you so far.
Also telling people to ask you to claim was very odd and unwarranted in this stage in the game.


You still didn't answer my question. But, I guess that is your shtick...to not answer questions. I mean it's great that you like Rest's answer, but are you always going to go just based on what others say. Or are you going to look into it and see why poeple say what they do and form our own opinion? Cause just following what others say isn't a great way to play mafia.

All the things you mentioned, except for the last one about claiming, were situation relevant.

Would you rather me make up a reason? There's no point in rephrasing what she said. I follow what others say if I agree. You can't always have an original opinion that someone else hasn't said. Just deal.

[dejkha]

Okay so out of all the reasons the only reason you think it's bad to nameclaim is based on the theme? Sorry but regardless of the theme why would or wouldn't you want a nameclaim in this point in the game? Rest's reason was only for *this* game, and it was a little weird in of it self. Sure south park doesn't have very stereotypical good/bad guys, but at some point way later on we will probably have a mass claim since that happens almost indefinitely in games.

I said hers was the best. I don't care if it was only for this game, it's not like I'm using that reason in another game. She gave a reason regarding this game... I'm playing this game... I think it makes sense.

Why would I want you to make up a reason? I asked you for your reason in your own words...I even said you could take the base concept from what others said. Just in your own darn words.

Somebody else said it for me. Besides, I'd rather not say it in my own words when it'll give you a chance to get nit picky and tear it up to the point where I'm even more scummy for something incredibly tiny I said. And I know you would. Her reason was the best to me and that's all you need to know.

Those are not situational.

We right now are scumhunting, later we will be scumhunting.

So why keep any suspicions about others from the town? Why keep information to yourself? Why only follow your suspicions if others will agree with you? Why are you so scared of others not agreeing with you?

And we right now are all people, later we will all be people. Scumhunting wasn't the situation I was referring to. It's Mafia; we're always scumhunting. It seems like you're repeatedly trying to work around what I say. +Scumpoints for you. inb4OMGUS

[dejkha]

Imagine if BSMv2 was posted by someone, totally unprompted. What if that person refused to provide a direct opinion on the matter until a majority of people had said it would be a bad idea, then went along with that majority? What does that tell you about this person?

I don't think BSMv2 is the same as what I said, so I may think of it different, but if I did think it was the same, I'd wouldn't think much of it. That person asked a question and waited on an answer. Then they agreed with the answers gotten because they made sense.

Given that my reasoning being "minor/silly" was the initial reason for your vote on me, how do you now justify your vote?

Based on whatever little things you've said/done that I haven't shared yet.

I strongly disagree that it is a "terrible" thing to bring into a case. You keep dropping wishy-washy disclaimers which give you leeway to claim ignorance in the event that you're wrong (and thus potentially lying) about something. You did exactly the same thing in your answer to question 2:

In question 2, I say "as far as I know" because of bunch of games I'm in/ have been in aren't finished yet so I wouldn't know. Only 2 games I was in were finished and they didn't have PR's. There's no reason to be certain of everything.

How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will? How could you not know whether you'd played in a game with post restrictions before, when such restrictions are obvious?

Because I remembered clicking "Submit" so I don't see why it wouldn't have gone through. Post restrictions aren't always obvious especially since they can include not posting at all.

Bearing in mind that at least two to three players here are scum, how could you reasonably base your decision to vote nonny on the support from those three people?

I'm more inclined to think that scum would get on the wagon with people that didn't believe me, which obviously they have.

Please fill in the blanks:

unvoted

Yes, that's it. We don't understand you. Rolling Eyes

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

Bonus question! If (b) is true, which of the following applies:

(a) you are - ironically - too close-minded to see why people think you said something suspicious, or
(b) you are scum?

First answer: A
Second Answer: C) None of the above.

Yes, let's all keep our opinions to ourselves until we're sure people won't disagree with us!

THAT WILL HELP CATCH THE SCUM

^Someone who doesn't care what scum knows or when they know it.

[dejkha]

It might. Still, it doesn't matter when I say it, as long as I do. Which I will. There's no rush in saying it. Town shouldn't have anything to lose by waiting.

[dejkha]

I'll do a full sweep of the last 5 pages of the argument and I'll include all the reasons, with quotes and the like. If I don't, then you can say I was lying. Besides, I doubt it's anything anyone else would take notice to and maybe it's not even a big deal.

[dejkha]

Timarrrgh

Do I need to spell this out?

post 38

Would there be any harm in

saying which character you are

? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

Officer Barbrady

or maybe

Satan if they're in it

. Not that I'm suggesting

claiming your character

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

giving a Timmy reference

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

BSMv2

Would there be any harm in

all having butt sex

? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

sphincter pain

or maybe

tearing if someone's too tight

. Not that I'm suggesting

us all having butt sex

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

offering butt sex

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

Seriously, what is the difference here?

They're semantically identical passages.

What we might derive about the writer's opinions/intentions are the same in each case, and your opinions/intentions are an issue for the town right now.

I guess I don't see it as the same. OH NOES!

When challenged over post 38, you claimed that you didn't have an opinion on the matter. When challenged further you started getting defensive and accusing everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious of being close-minded.

However, when I asked you about BSMv2 in contrast with post 38, you admitted (eventually, while under pressure) that the former "

doesn't seem very neutral

" before babbling on about the context of BSMv1 (which, in case you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing whatsoever with the point I'm trying to make with BSMv2).

This leaves us with a contradiction. If BSMv2 does not read as neutral then how can post 38 read as neutral? Please try to answer this without backtracking to the context of BSMv1, because the context of BSMv1 is irrelevant to this particular point. Timemememmegah

Because I don't think they're the same.

but this doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you make a point of implying uncertainty of whether it went through? Why not just say "I replied to Rest, but it didn't go through"?

Because I didn't want to.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

I meant scum would more likely agree with the case on me, which they have.

I care plenty; I also appreciate that there's a

big

difference between selectively witholding information from potential scum and witholding

all

information from everyone.

What's the difference here? If I'm withholding information, you don't know if it's all or selective and there is potential scum, so I'm withholding it from them.

For someone who is so conscious of what scum know, you were pretty quick to explicitly announce that you suspected me (not that the vote was a conspicuous sign or anything)! Besides which, witholding scumhunt information from someone you openly finger as suspicious is a redundant exercise - if you're doing it to keep your suspects from knowing you're watching them then you've blown it by announcing it, and if you're doing it to see if they slip up you've blown it by putting them on their guard.

How do you know you're still my suspect? You have no idea if the information I'm withholding concerns you and nobody else knows if it concerns them. FYI, being scum, I'd like to think they're always on there guard, so I don't worry about that.

That aside, your refusal to assist in the scumhunt (i.e. active participation;, asking questions, discussing points instead of inventing amusing metaphors for throwing them in the trash) does not help at all; you say it doesn't matter when you post it, but I contend that it is quite important. What if you don't start presenting a case until, say, a week before deadline? If you are the primary lynch candidate at that point, for example, and your case is good enough to make people think you're town (but not good enough to unanimously follow it), the town is suddenly forced into a position where they're under pressure to collectively decide on another candidate. What good can come of this?

You mean what good can come of selecting to lynch one of two suspicious people? What bad can come of it? The case either persuades you or it doesn't or we're both equally scummy, in which case it shouldn't matter who you vote for. But if they're that under pressure, then they don't have to vote. Town is always under pressure to lynch the right person.

You're basically expecting the town to take a gamble and hope that you will respond not only early enough to allow room for absorption/development of your case, but also for the town to get a read on you which doesn't amount to "stubbornest douche in the universe". If you deny the town a read then they'll always be second guessing you, and scum will take advantage of this, so at best it's an anti-town move.

Well, then if I'm lynched you'll get a good chance to see who exploited it the most.

Also worth noting: the #1 scum objective (besides winning, obviously) is to deny the town an accurate read, or any read. This seems to be just what you are doing.

Things aren't always as they seem.

Incidently, I recall that you didn't address Rest's point in #61. I also recall that you did not so much as comment on this negligence when I brought it up in this post (or the mega-post which followed). Have you got an explanation for this yet, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

Explanation to what? I see no point. Restate it and I'll respond if I haven't.

[dejkha]

I gotta get to bed really, but there's one thing in particular I'd like to check now.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

I meant scum would more likely agree with the case on me, which they have.

Let me rephrase: how do you know this is the case?

Maybe I missed it, but who understood what I initially asked, answered the question and never questioned it at any point after?

-------

Ghost: "That is all BS and stop playing scummy."

Dej: Opinions, opinions.

No dej, you do not get to palm this off. Read each passage in #146 again, and explain what makes post 38 devoid of opinion (i.e. neutral) in contrast to the lack of neutrality in BSMv2 .

Can't put my finger on it.

You see no point? In the post which I linked (#89 - here it is again) I mentioned Rest briefly, and followed with a point about your failure to address an argument of hers (which was also made by nonny, in a more roundabout way). Do you have an explanation for your failure to acknowledge or address said argument?

I still don't know what you're talking about, but I'll assume its how she made a similar statement to nonny. I thought Rests was better I guess. I dont even remember what Nonny said, but since I went with Rests reason, I'll guess I didn't particularly care.

[dejkha]

I'll post my suspicions later tonight or sometime tomorrow.

[dejkha]

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The post that started it all. I'll call it "the post" for easy reference. Before I get into this, I think what may have caused confusion was how I asked the first question. I said "Would there be any harm in saying which character you are?" and you all may think I asked it as oppose to "Would there be any good in saying which character you are?" which would imply that I don't think it's a good idea where as my original phrasing of the question implies that I do. Maybe that caused problems, maybe not. Anyway:

At first I suspected Spolium the most, but re-reading the thread gave me a new opinion.

I noticed that Nonny and Nico answered the initial question with reasons and that was all. Then Spolium made a post saying how only the question was scummy and made no note of anything after it. After that, Nonny notes how it was weird, but, I for one, think that would be something you'd notice from reading the question the first time. So, while she must've had the opinion, 'it was weird', she didn't think it was weird enough to bring up until someone else did.

I personally didn't notice that part either, but it doesn't change the fact that you brought it up, for essentially no point. Especially this point in the game.

^Doesn't that also seem like something she would think from reading "the post" the first time, rather than waiting until someone else found the question scummy? If she thought "the post" was as scummy as she made it look, she would not have waited until someone else brought it up.

Anyone that made their first post and used that for an argument after that nonny's above post is hard to get a read on.

And bringing up the subject is suggesting it.

That was a very false statement. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but it really is for obvious reasons.

Still wondering your opinion on name claiming.

Oh really?

Now once again what is your actual opinion on nameclaiming?

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter,

so I'm against it.

And she acknowledged my answer by saying.

Because now it appears you are only against it because everyone else is.

So obviously, I did say my position and she was aware of it.

Yes, I have [been reading]. And I'm not the only one noticing that it's missing.

Actually, I think you were. Or at least you were trying to make it seem that way. But that looks like you're trying to make me look even more suspicious by making it look like I haven't answered questions that I have answered.

That actually makes sense. If you could have said that earlier instead of getting defensive it would of been better. Now that you know other peoples opinions on nameclaiming, what do you think of it?

The first sentence may be her trying to look like she's being understandable, but the second sentence is her asking for my opinion on name claiming

again

.

So, for most of the thread, she's pushing harder and harder because of a post that seemed fine until it Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf

, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

Howsabout you do some actual scumhunting

instead of buddying up to caf

and pointing out everyone else's shortcomings?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player,

so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him

.

I can see why he may have wanted an explanation, but the bolded parts are pretty much the same. Why would I single out Caf if I thought he wasn't useful or logical? It seems like a given. I'll give Spolium only a few scumpoints for that, but I could see where he was coming from if he was serious.

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter, so I'm against it.

This boils down to two vital, bullshit elements:

1 - "Oh, I answered the question already but APPARENTLY it didn't go through, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL."
2 - "My question was answered, so I'm against it"

1 is a prime example of dej's wishy-washy play. "Apparently"? "As far as [dejkha] can tell"? Is there some way to check whether a post went through, other than hitting the refresh key? Why the forced implication of uncertainty? The post either went through, or it didn't.

Understandable point, but an unnecessary, reaching one IMO. I see no way how my post could come back to haunt me if I posted in certainty and it seems like an easy way to attract suspicion to me.

Nico hasn't been saying much, which seems to be because of restricted access, but I'm gonna let her get by because of that. She seemed to understand what I was saying, she asked me a few questions, I answered and she understood my answers, which makes this a little weird:

Actually, I wouldn't mind a dej lynch at this point...

vote: dej

with her reasoning being:

He hasn't really tried to explain himself about anything this game.

Which seems a little weird to me considering how she has hardly posted and when she did, most of the time, if not every time, it was a question to me that I answered. Sounds like she saw how everyone was saying I wasn't answering questions, so she said I wasn't explaining. Sounds like an easy way on the wagon to me.

God help the town if Spolium is Mafia.

No biggy, but i really don't like that statement. Just seems like an odd thing to say.

Those are my thoughts. I'll let everyone else think of it what they will.

Unvote Vote: Nonny

[dejkha]

Yes pulling things out of context is amazing. I said you hadn't answer

why

you were against it! Saying yay or nay doesn't count as giving your opinion on a subject. You have to give reasoning without reasoning there is no opinion and no solid stance. So because you weren't able to give me reasons and I kept asking for them that makes me scummy? Care to elobrate? Right now that looks very OMGUS.

there are still millions of questions out there for you to answer and instead of doing so you just decide to go after me. And like I said, you already picked to be against me, all this "proof" is after the fact that you said you already thought I was suspicious.

I said you would be suspicious under circumstances that turned out not to be true. There's nothing OMGUS about it. If I were to OMGUS vote, then it would be against Spolium since he's been all over me with this as well as leading the attack.

Feel free to restate any question you have for me as long as I haven't answered it and it doesn't have to do with a suggestion that I didn't make.

[dejkha]

BTW, asking my opinion on it isn't asking why. If you wanted a why (which I also gave to you) then you should've specifically said so, which I don't think you did.

[dejkha]

I said why in the form of Rest's response. I mean, everyone's reasons seemed pretty solid, but I favored hers the most. I don't need to say anything else regarding why.

[dejkha]

I guess they were lost in the abyss of reason. Hell, I don't even remember what they were (maybe it was OMGUS), but I'm more confident in my vote on nonny since I reread.

[dejkha]

Oh wow, I'm not gonna hear the end of this am I? So what if I forgot? I certainty wouldn't have forgotten anything important. There's no point in arguing it, so please don't.

[dejkha]

Or not, since it's near impossible to push suspicion onto someone without making a case or displaying any sort of evidence whatsoever. I'm feeling more and more confident with my vote with every post you make =D

[dejkha]

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

I didn't say it wasn't. Hence me saying I could understand why you asked.

Incidently, I find it interesting that in your assessment of caf, you didn't seem to give even the slightest consideration to the possibility that he might be scum.

- What do you think about caf's refusal to support you?
- Does this fly in the face of your hope that he be open minded?
- Do you find him scummy as a result?

- I don't think much of it. Just like I don't think much of anyone else that doesn't support me outside of you and nonny.
- Nope
- Nope, but then again, he's not posting so much, so I don't have much to work with.

Waaaaait a second. (TIMMEH!)

Remember what you said in #72 (and snipped down when you quoted it above)? It was: "

is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

" Nothing about logic or usefulness declared until after I asked question 7.

- How is it a

given

that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

- Those can all be answered by pointing to my "I can see why he may have wanted an explanation". I didn't say they were the say thing.

Can you explain what you mean by the emboldened text? I can't make any sense of it.

I'm not sure what you mean in saying it's an easy way to attract suspicion to you. It's not at all easy to convince people that a linguistic feature suggests scumminess, as indicated by the fact that nobody has really taken to it. TIIIIIEEEEEMMMMMMAAAAARRRGGGHHH

I mean if I were to rephrase the statement, making it certain, such as "My response to Rest's post didn't go through", as opposed to my original uncertain post, I can't see how it could be used against me. Understand?

[dejkha]

Or not, since it's near impossible to push suspicion onto someone without making a case or displaying any sort of evidence whatsoever. I'm feeling more and more confident with my vote with every post you make =D

Saying that unless poeple ask/pressure you to claim they should move on and then one or two posts later saying by the way I suspect these poeple but won't say way is a poor way to attempt just that. It's not impossible it's just not done by those who know how to play.

You were attempting to get the attention off of yourself by putting up a curtain and saying to look over there. But you wouldn't say what is there, just that something must be there. Now you again are trying to detract attention from yourself and turn it on others while you are at L-3. Suddenly when people are asking you for info and possibly a claim you suddenly have reasons(that you will share) why we should be concentrating on others. This is all silly and mediocre ways to play mafia. I've seen it happen a lot in many different games, but it's always annoying and makes me ask what are you trying to hide?

I sounds to me like you're getting defensive because I'm onto you. The second paragraph also sounds like you're mad that I revealed my suspicions, which you shouldn't be since you were all asking for it.

1. If, in your experience, caf is open-minded - and, in your opinion, everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious is close-minded - does that not suggest that his play is contrary to your experience with him? What might you determine from his "close-mindedness" in light of your experience with him?

2. Trick question - caf's refusal to support you flies in the face of your expectations by definition. Why have you denied that it doesn't?

3. TIMMMEEEEEEH (ok)

1. I don't believe I said everyone who thought it was suspicious is close-minded. If I did, it was only under circumstances that turned not to be true. But I'm sure you'll quote me on something that you think would imply that I thought that, which is pretty much all you've been able to get - implications. It kind of shows how much you're willing to reach.

2. I didn't

expect

him to agree with me, nor did I said so. I thought if anyone would understand it would be him, but I wasn't expecting him to say "Oh, Dej is right!"

Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you had just said "sorry, it didn't go through, here is my opinion on nameclaiming: blah blah etc." then I wouldn't have picked up on it.

The fact that you did pick up on it is exactly my point. You agree that if i was certain, nothing would come of it, which is exactly why it's weird for you to try to bring it into your case: because there's no way me being certain could backfire. Meaning, I'd have nothing to lose or gain by being certain or uncertain with that particular statement, so your attack seems to attract easy suspicion.

Before Nonny and Spolium respond, can we get other opinions first, because it's pretty much been us three discussing the matter? Everyone else has been making short posts regarding RBT for the most part. Which, BTW, I don't agree with the point everyone's making with how he (or is it a she? no gender specified.) reacted to the his own PR, but I would like him to say more than just what he does and doesn't like, preferably with reasons.

[dejkha]

I did answer the questions. Too bad if you don't like the answer.

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

First answer: A

Timmeh

.

Am I mistaken or did you not ask which was "more likely"? I'm not mistaken? Ok good, so stop using word play to make it seem like I made a statement I did not make.

Am I to understand that you are denying the value of taking your statements to their logical conclusions? Why is it a "reach" for me to do so should I be waiting for scum to say something suspicious outright?

Scum do say suspicious things outright, more often than not, I might add. They don't do it on purpose, but people rarely find scum by relying on implications (couple that with the rarity of actual town won games to make it even more unlikely) as much as you are.

You still haven't addressed my argument here - why imply uncertainty when confirming a successful post is a simple matter? How doing so might benefit scum is neither here nor there - my point is that it was a very odd thing to say.

I already said why I was posted in uncertainty. Why the hell are you arguing it if it's "just an odd thing to say"? If that's all it is, then just drop it. If you won't, I will.

[dejkha]

Your answer made clear that in your opinion, everyone who took post 38 to be suspicious is a "close minded fool".

Saying I made statements that I did not make. I hope people make note of that.

I don't rely on implications to catch scum - I catch scum by piecing together the implications of someone's statements and seeing whether those implications fit with their actions/words, or otherwise stand out. Right now, you stand out like crazy.

"I sound like crazy"? XD Best statement ever.

Oh yeah, I remember; I asked why you didn't post in certainty, you replied "

Because I didn't want to

". Correct? Or have you changed your answer since then?

What makes you think I've changed my answer?

[dejkha]

EBWOP: "

stand out like crazy"? XD Best statement ever."

Okie dokie then. Funny stuff.

[dejkha]

Evidence plz.

Your post

It was a question, not a statement.

I know, but I want to know why you think I have. I haven't made any mention of a change in my answer.

[dejkha]

"Your answer made clear that in your opinion, everyone who took post 38 to be suspicious is a 'close minded fool'."

[dejkha]

nico is yet to substantially do this. What do you think of that?

The thing with Nico is that, I've played with her before it a lot of the time this just seems to be what she does (making few posts, most of which reiterate what people already said), so I'm not gonna hold that against her completely. But as I said, her vote on me seemed uncalled for and without reasoning

As for the top 3 suspects thing you mentioned, I don' think that's wise. That could allow scum to adjust to who we find most suspicious and form a case of those people. I think Spolium's varied question list would be a better way to share that information without giving to much away.

Mmm. In what way did your answer not suggest that?

In the way that I'd answer a multiple choice question with the words "most likely" in the question. There's really no way around it. You're manipulating what I said to throw more suspicion my way.

[dejkha]

Dej: so you feel that RBT's claim was appropriate? You feel that she was being wrongly pressured for such a claim?

I got the impression that she was being pressuring for claiming and her attitude when doing it, correct?

The way I see it, the constant "m'kays" made it obvious (don't even bother bringing up about how I got on Spolium for this because I already said I didn't know what PR's were then). She seemed frustrated that she had to use the word and I highly doubt scum would take the chance at fakeclaiming (I don't think Mr. Mackey could even be bad, but it could happen) when the real character could be out there. I believe that she's more likely a vanilla townie than scum, but that doesn't excuse her from future suspicion, especially since she seems to be lurking for the most part.

[dejkha]

So then you do feel she was being pressured into a full claim?

Given how obvious her PR was, I'd imagine she wanted to let scum know that she's just a vanilla townie, which seems reasonable for Mackey (even though it could be a lie). I don't think she was pressured into claiming, but I don't think there's anything particularly scummy about it. It's just unfortunate that she had to do so.

Also dejka, you were asked about claiming previously, opinion on that?

Can you be more specific? Do you mean my opinion on just generally saying "I'm [insert character here]" for whatever reason?

[quote="Spolium]Manipulation, or basic reading comprehension? YOU DECIDE [/quote]

Manipulation

[dejkha]

I see how how it could be seen an contradictory stance, but I don't think it is. She pointed out how most characters have gone bad and that's true, but as far as I remember, it's not true of Mr. Mackey. The closest thing to "bad" I can remember Mr Mackey doing was smoking pot. Most other characters have some sort of bad side, so I don't think her claiming was particularly scummy.

[dejkha]

He had pre-marital sex and as such will go to hell.

Dejkha: Can you understand how Spoilum got the impression he did from those posts he quoted? (the manipulation or readiong comprehension one) What did you mean?

I understand how he could've gotten the impression, but after I explained the reasoning for my answer it seems like he's ignoring it. He asked me which was more likely, so I answered which i thought was more likely.

[dejkha]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not accepting it as a valid explanation. In pointing out which you thought was more likely you reinforced previous assertions regarding the open-mindedness of other players in the game.

Or I could've done what? Say I thought it was more likely I said something suspicious when the whole time before that I was saying otherwise? If I said that, I would've obviously been lying. No matter what I say, it's just gonna end up in another string of questions and reaching. It doesn't matter what it reinforced, I never said what you're claiming I said. All you're doing is relying on incorrect implications, which will prove that doing so won't find scum.

[dejkha]

The point i think is that south park has to characters that are nesscairly good or bad to saying you beleive the claim at this point seem foolhardy. I mean the mod could have made teachers scum or grown ups or anything....point is that it could be anyone.

So why write someone off with a unwanted claim?

I'd say "some hasn't been reading" like I did before, but you'd just say you were, so I'll save us a few posts.

I believe that she's more likely a vanilla townie than scum, but that doesn't excuse her from future suspicion, especially since she seems to be lurking for the most part.

[dejkha]

Okay I'll rephrase since you are allowed to be picky but no one else is. Why even point out you think she is believable, yet have the caveat that you may in the future suspect her. You always add in those I think this but just in case it changes it's not something i feel really strongly about.

I'd like opinions on this from others. Nonny, do not answer: Does anyone think I was knit picking or that I correcting her when she made a false claim? Either I wrote RBT off or I didn't, so I don't see many ways to go about nitpicking through it.

@Nonny: I said I think she's more likely to be vanilla than scum, but it's a given that, since there's no way I could possible know whether or not she's telling the truth, she's not excused from future suspicion. If I did excuse her from future suspicion then your "write her off" statement would be correct, but that's not the case and it would be stupid to do so, so don't even try to make a deal out of what I said.

[dejkha]

Since there are two week deadlines, which is in 4 days, I'd like to claim right about now so we can at least generate discussion based on that before the day is up, since it looks like I'm gonna be lynched if I don't. If I claim and you believe me, then we're gonna need time to look at everything that's been going on and make a new lynch based on that.

Is that fine with most of you?

[dejkha]

Alright. I gonna hope that Nonny, Caf, RBT and Eso don't mind. Not much to lose by claiming.

The mod says not to quote him on anything, so I'm gonna assume it's ok to say what my role does since I'm not quoting him.

I'm Kenny, so as you can imagine, I

have

to die and the only way I can win is if town wins

and

I die by using my night action. My night action is to stop all kills, but I die in the process. So, whether you lynch me today or not, I won't be here tomorrow, since if I don't use my NC today, scum will surely kill me.

So, if you don't believe me, I ask that we vote no lynch if we can't get enough info to make another reasonable lynch, so I can at least use my night action. If I'm here tomorrow, I guess you can consider me scum (I say that hoping to god that my night action isn't canceled out by someone, one way or another).

[dejkha]

It stops all night kills from going through. That seems like a fair trade off for having to die. If I were a Jester, I would've just claimed Vanilla and I would've waited for someone to ask me to claim rather than suggesting it. Either way, you shouldn't lynch me. My night action is now or never because scum won't want me to live so I'm not gonna take the chance at not using it.

[dejkha]

Nico, I was thinking someone might block it, but I didn't say anything hoping not to give them ideas. So I'm gonna hope he didn't put a roleblocker in this game.

[dejkha]

we let dej survive to night, but if there is a vidge (or any other townie with an NK) they should kill dej tonight. If they do that, it's beneficial in all 3 scenarios: if he's scum, you kill scum. If he's town and gets roleblocked, then you're killing someone who we would just be lynching in the day anyway, thus saving us a day/night cycle. If he's town and doesn't get roleblocked, your kill won't go through so it doesn't matter who you targeted.

That's a great idea. So that has to be the plan if we have a townie with a NK.

My role is why I believe RBT is more likely to be a Vanilla Mackey. It would seem like the Mod tried to match the characters with a reasonable night action (or lack thereof) that reflects them and Mr. Mackey is as plain as they come.

I'd still like responses to this post (the events leading up to this take places between 238 and 240):

Okay I'll rephrase since you are allowed to be picky but no one else is. Why even point out you think she is believable, yet have the caveat that you may in the future suspect her. You always add in those I think this but just in case it changes it's not something i feel really strongly about.

I'd like opinions on this from others. Nonny, do not answer: Does anyone think I was picky or that I correcting her when she made a false claim? Either I wrote RBT off or I didn't, so I don't see many ways to go about nitpicking through it.

[dejkha]

You mean would it sound like I sound my ability in the flavor text? I don't think I understand what you mean...

[dejkha]

I wouldn't know. I'm going to die regardless with the current plan we have, assuming there's a townie that gets a NK. I don't think there would be anything to gain from knowing if scum killed me, because that would seem like the logical thing to do no matter who's scum; if they don't have a roleblocker that is.

[dejkha]

Mod

: Can you prod Zazier or replace her? I don't think she posted since the first day or two this game started.

[dejkha]

Caf, I'm just curious, when you posted everyone's post count in this game, did you count all that by yourself?

[dejkha]

Oh ok. Thanks. That could come in handy elsewhere.