Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[Deuxieme Octopus]

Considering that most of the town has shown disapproval for your plan to lynch the claimed doctor, are you still supportive of it? Is there any alternate suspects you have?

I still think it would be interesting. It obviously isn't going to happen, so no use floundering in the mud.

unvote

[Lynx The Antithesis]

I'm not getting this reason still. You thought that one of the two of them was the doctor before or after their claims? My thing against you was why you weren't on the wagon in the first place not after their claims.(well inserted Zoolander reference boosts my respect for you at least)

the thought occurred to me before the claim. first with spring, then with budja. why would i vote a player who i think may have a town pr?

But I have no way of knowing that you thought that before their claims considering you stated this read after both of their claims. I don't think it's fair of you to pose that question when I have absolutely no basis to believe you didn't vote them because you thought they were power roles. What in Spring's play made you think she was the doc before the claim? The same goes for Budja.

I have a macroeconomics midterm tomorrow so my posting's probably gonna be limited today.

[TonyMontana]

Vote Count

Vote
Count
Lynches
Night Killers
Stalkers of the prey
I swear, she said she was 19

L-3

don_johnson

(3) springlullaby, RedCoyote, Lynx The Antithesis
L-5

Deuxieme Octopus

(1) don_johnson
L-5

Jebus

(1) goatrevolt
L-5

RedCoyote

(1) Spolium

Not Voting: (5) millar13 | Jebus | fhqwhgads | Plonky | Deuxieme Octopus

With 11 people alive, it takes

6 votes to lynch

Plonky

, welcome to my blacklist.

millar13

, this is the only warning I will give you. Get it the fuck on, or get replaced.

[springlullaby]

Hi, Weekend V/LA notice.

[don_johnson]

I'm not getting this reason still. You thought that one of the two of them was the doctor before or after their claims? My thing against you was why you weren't on the wagon in the first place not after their claims.(well inserted Zoolander reference boosts my respect for you at least)

the thought occurred to me before the claim. first with spring, then with budja. why would i vote a player who i think may have a town pr?

But I have no way of knowing that you thought that before their claims considering you stated this read after both of their claims. I don't think it's fair of you to pose that question when I have absolutely no basis to believe you didn't vote them because you thought they were power roles. What in Spring's play made you think she was the doc before the claim? The same goes for Budja.

I have a macroeconomics midterm tomorrow so my posting's probably gonna be limited today.

you are the one asking about this line of reasoning, not me. would you rather i lie? if its a no win situation you have placed me in, it is much more polite to just let me know, than to ask me a series of questions whose answers you have already made up your mind not to believe.

[RedCoyote]

It was your active criticism of every non-lurking related argument set against her that was defensive, not the fact that you shared opinions of her.

Mmm.

I criticized those who used the argument that her post was concocted, and I critized those who used the argument that her post was misrepresentative; I was defensive in that sense, defensive of what I saw as bad arguments.

I

was not

getting "ridiculously defensive", I was not "going out of my way to stand up for spring", I'm not "so adamant about defending spring that I cannot think reasonably". All of these comments, Spolium, are way overboard, and your argument is merely an extension of them because it followed the same false logic.

That presumption would be much better grounded had spring not been on the scum leaning side of my scale until she claimed, but I made it clear that I considered her to be lynch material. I certainly did not consider myself a spring defender.

Even despite that, that presumption that I was a spring defender because I didn't care for the WIFOM argument that her post was concocted (regardless as to whether or not what I thought was true was WIFOMy, since any argument we accept will necessarily be WIFOM), and that I didn't care for don and Budja complaining that she misrepresented them, is incorrect logic.

With only a few exceptions (those of which, rest assured, I haven't forgotten), many players, including Budja, have been actively attempting to tie me and spring together because I do not accept the above two propositions (her post was concocted/delibrately misrepresentative). Many of you have went so far as to say that because I do not accept those arguments, then I am thus a spring defender.

Proposed Syllogism

If someone is a spring defender then they will dispute attacks against spring.
RC disputed attacks against spring.
Therefore, RC is a spring defender.

The reason why that logic is incorrect is because it is affirming the consequent.

I wanted to see if Lynx would bite down on this, hence the reason I had asked Lynx and not you, but this is what I was leading toward.
---

Hi, Weekend V/LA notice.

But... you haven't posted during the week either!

[Spolium]

With only a few exceptions (those of which, rest assured, I haven't forgotten), many players, including Budja, have been actively attempting to tie me and spring together because I do not accept the above two propositions (her post was concocted/delibrately misrepresentative). Many of you have went so far as to say that because I do not accept those arguments, then I am thus a spring defender.

What are the exceptions you mentioned in the first sentence?

Can you cite where someone said you were a Spring defender as a consequence of not accepting arguments against Spring?

Proposed Syllogism

If someone is a spring defender then they will dispute attacks against spring.
RC disputed attacks against spring.
Therefore, RC is a spring defender.

The reason why that logic is incorrect is because it is affirming the consequent.

Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?

I wanted to see if Lynx would bite down on this, hence the reason I had asked Lynx and not you, but this is what I was leading toward.

You couldn't have waited for Lynx to reply first? So far you've been quite content to tar everyone who challenged Spring with the same brush, so why change your tune now?

Question: How do

you

define "defence"?

---------------

Hi, Weekend V/LA notice.

But... you haven't posted during the week either!

This. You're the most trusted player right now Spring, I think it would be worthwhile if you shared your thoughts before the weekend hits.

[don_johnson]

I wanted to see if Lynx would bite down on this, hence the reason I had asked Lynx and not you, but this is what I was leading toward.

sorry, but can you explain this statement. are you implying a "gambit" or something? i don't really understand what you're saying here. thanks.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

you are the one asking about this line of reasoning, not me. would you rather i lie? if its a no win situation you have placed me in, it is much more polite to just let me know, than to ask me a series of questions whose answers you have already made up your mind not to believe.

It was for my own clarification. You brought up the fact that I missed this reason. I wasn't sure if you meant that you weren't down with lynching power roles after their claim or before. The reason I ask you is that the way you explain it may change what I believe. Just look at when I messed up your view that you thought Budja was a frustrated townie on Day 1. If I hadn't asked you i would still be under this false impression. You cleared it up. Hence why I ask the questions.

Red, sorry for not responding before I didn't have enough time. I still think it was defense because you criticized many of the arguments against Spring and attacked many of the players on Spring. By doing this you effectively relieved pressure off of Spring. She could have addressed those arguments herself, and by you speaking on her behalf and picking apart arguments, Spring evaded the whole point of the pressure relatively unscathed. The same goes for when Spolium did this with Budja against Goat right in the beginning of the game. That was also a defense. Which Spolium even admitted to doing.

[RedCoyote]

What are the exceptions you mentioned in the first sentence?

Jebus, Plonky, DO, and millar

Yeah, I know

Can you cite where someone said you were a Spring defender as a consequence of not accepting arguments against Spring?

...

Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?

Yes sir.

It was

your active criticism of every non-lurking related argument

set against her

that was defensive

, not the fact that you shared opinions of her.

(emphasis added).

The posts that have documented FoSs on me during D1 will follow the same sort of logic, but using your words will make my point a little more clear. I criticized arguments against her, therefore I was a spring defender. I don't agree with that conclusion, and I contend that it is a fallacy.

The fact that you're voting for me based on it, even if as but a means to apply pressure, shows that you have at least some stake in this argument that I simply cannot agree with.

Question: How do you define "defence"?

As some crazy British word XD

No, seriously I would define defense as a player standing up for another player on the basis of their personal conclusions of them. I don't think, as you may, that a player can sincerely defend a player whom they believe is scum. Maybe I was defending the public sphere from arguments I saw as faulty?

Hmmm...

May I retort with a follow-up question? Do you understand, to any degree, my unwillingness to be labeled as spring's defender, especially at the time, if I was still seriously considering her own position in this town?

I'm seriously beginning to think it's not worth arguing the point any longer, and let's just let the town believe that I was the spring defender if only to move this argument along. At the time, I was being suspected for criticizing the attacks against spring because that supposedly made me a spring defender, but now that I've tried to explain that I wasn't a spring defender, nor was I trying to be (and even cited quotations stating in so many words that I couldn't defend her actions), I'm being voted for trying to "backpedal". Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario I got myself into here.

---

are you implying a "gambit" or something? i don't really understand what you're saying here. thanks.

It's just that Spolium had answered the question I proposed to Lynx. I proposed it to Lynx specifically because I thought as though I would have an easier time explaining my position to Lynx than I would to Spolium, given the history of the game.

[RedCoyote]

Partially through my re-read of D1, plan to post my conclusions sometime this weekend.

[don_johnson]

Considering that most of the town has shown disapproval for your plan to lynch the claimed doctor, are you still supportive of it?

Is there any alternate suspects you have?

I still think it would be interesting. It obviously isn't going to happen, so no use floundering in the mud.

unvote

care to answer the second question?

[Deuxieme Octopus]

nothing yet

[Jebus]

Be back to post meaningfully tomorrow/tuesday, I haven't disappeared on you guys D:

[fhqwhgads]

Urgh, this game is stagnating.

atm I'm torn between DO for his absurd 'policy vote' suggestion and RC.

RC, I just don't buy your 'opinion vs defense' argument (or is that just my opinion?). Personally I think you would have looked much better if you just conceded on being on the defense for spring. This justification of your defense that isn't one is just doesn't work for me.

[RedCoyote]

RC's observations of D1

When [Budja's] trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactly what sort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).

The first post I want to bring to everyone's attention is post 58 by Spolium. Spolium and Goat would have a serious theory discussion here over what is and isn't scummy about pressure votes, specifically Budja's vote.

What Spolium says here is notable because Spolium makes his intention's clear that he sees nothing scummy about Budja's vote in this post. He claims to see one null tell, the fact that Budja announced that his vote was intended to be weak, which he considers "anti-town" but not "scummy".

The part I quoted in particular I simply disagree with, and it appears to be reaching in an attempt to answer the question Goat asked Budja.

Goat asks Budja what discussion he planned to spark with his vote, and Spolium intercedes saying that anything Budja will say may get him into hot water.

It worked. Budja never answered this question, was never held accountable for it, and a likely reason is because of Spolium's intervention.

[Budja,] the problem is that you were trying to take us out of the random stage with a vote that was "no worse than a random vote" and "meaningless".

[...]

unvote [Budja]

This also has to do with the hullabaloo over Budja's vote.

The reasons I don't like this post are two-fold.

First, don just blantantly accepts that Budja's intentions were to try to "get us out" of the RVS. To be fair to don, he wasn't the only one to just accept that Budja's vote was the first "real" vote, but he was the first person to state it so bluntly. My whole argument at this point in the game, contrary to the problems other players had with Budja, was that I thought Ice9's vote on WolfBlitzer was, without question, not random.

To everyone else, a wagon we need
My words are what you surely should heed
WolfBlitzer is trying to deflect what I've said
So I say to you all, "Off with his head!"

Poetry or not, I don't see how one can misinterpret this. I guess as sarcasm? In either case, I could further argue, as Ice9 did in this post as well, that WolfBlitzer's original (and only) vote on magisterrian in post 9 (!) wasn't random because he calls her post "scary" and claims she is "chainsawing" for another player.

My point being

that the RVS was long dead and gone before Budja voted, and I hit him for claiming that it wasn't, and I'm hitting don here for, essentially doing the same thing with this quote.

Secondly, don unvotes Budja with very little reason for doing so. He never claims he accepts Budja's explanation, he just unvotes, almost as if he never really cared for his vote to be there in the first place. Now that Budja has flipped mafia, this necessarily entails much more suspicion than it might otherwise have.

This was something to push the town out of the joking random phase(which it pretty much did). I believe [Budja's] sparking discussion and pushing us out of the random phase defenses are one in the same and not contradictory.

Same point I made with don's post above. Lynx is just as dismissive of Ice9 and Wolf's votes, which, I contended, had already effectively put an end to the RVS.

I didn't realise Ice was being serious on his suspicion, maybe more serious than a complete random vote but not much. It was page 2!

It was page 2! is not a valid excuse. Is there an arbitrary number of pages that have to be produced before votes can be considered serious? If so, I didn't get the memo.

This helps solidify my point that Ice9's vote was indeed

not random

as Budja claimed, and as don, Spolium, and Lynx have agreed with.

Moreover, Ice9 votes Budja here.

My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town

Ice9 brings this up later, but this meta defense of Budja is undoubtedly a tough pill for Spolium to swallow now.

---

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing.

Who could forget this?

spring, of course, was lying here; She was active lurking. I think he distinction between the active lurking and "lurking lurking" is complete bunk. She was following the game, she just claims she never wanted to post.

Lynx and Azhrei vote her for this post, me and Goat FoS her for it.

don voted her as well, but his vote was the cause of this post.

Ice9 is the first player to bring up the idea that spring maybe a scapegoat, and pushes don and Azhrei specifically for this, which Goat agrees with.

---

As I said before, I don't think this excuses Budja from elaborating further, and I'm still waiting to see what else he has to say about it. At this point his lack of further defence is piquing my interest far more than his initial actions.

This gives Spolium some creditability back, IMO.

@

don_johnson

: Why did you unvote Budja when you did? Why haven't you mentioned him since then?

i don't think a poetic slip was worth the continued pressure.

i think it would be better for me to reread instead of tunneling on [Budja] for one post.

Bad, bad, a million times bad.

The only excuse I can give don here that isn't completely grounded in manipulating the arguments against Budja is that he isn't paying attention to the game at all.

I know, at the very least, me, Ice9, and Lynx all had documented problems with Budja that were not based on poetry at all. Accused of hypocrisy and piggybacking, Budja was well beyond the point where he could be given a pass for having poetry problems.

don had to have known that, I mean, what the heck did he think Spolium and Ice9 were arguing about?

This is either a subtle strawman-ish defense of Budja (reducing all problems with Budja to "poetry malfunctions"), or just not paying enough attention to the game.

don commits this sin later in the game.

---

It's difficult to analyze the walls that Spolium and Goat threw at each other given that, at the time, I read them both as more townie than scummy, and, as of now, I still do.

Spolium has a way of pushing the enevlope just enough to make me think he's a contrary townie, but not to the point where I think he's purposefully trying to construct a false reality.

I saw that then and I see that now as I reread this. Spolium 119 is a perfect example, even though he never addresses Budja, I can't really call him out for it because he makes great points against me, spring, don, and Goat.

---

I do think everyone has ignored the fact that spolium pointed out his gameplay was verified by his meta. This was also one of the bases of my argument that we shouldn't tunnel on Budja, which I felt was happening at the time.

Yikes, unlike don, fhq's defense here isn't as subtle.

I don't see Budja being tunnelled at this point at all, I think Ice9, Spolium, spring, and fhq have received a fair share of heat in this game.

Why is fhq just more or less repeating what don claimed?

---

I'm not sure how to take that replacement comment. Don't you want to see if I lurk all the the way?

Obstinate and oblivious.

---

Anyway, right off I'm getting scum-vibes from fhqwhgads

Post 32 - Budja jumps on wolfwagon. I like this move.

fhqwhgads - ~town

springlullaby - ~anti-town town

Oh, and Vote: Springlullaby

The reasoning should be obvious.

Jebus here feels very broken, very scatterbrained. I don't know if I would go so far as to call him hypocritical, just very peculiar I guess. I think Jebus is the kind of player who changes his mind easily.

Nevertheless, Jebus was unapologetically supportive of Budja here.

Post 35 - RedCoyote. About halfway through he declares the RVS over, something I've learned is a bad move.

This could just be a policy that Jebus has that I disagree with, but if he disputes that the RVS had been over long before I made that comment, than I think he's in the same camp as don and Lynx in that they either aren't reading close enough or are delibrately trying to minimize the case against Budja.

Jebus made it clear that he thought Ice9 randomly voted Wolf, but that context of Ice9's posts beg to differ. Refer to the earlier part of this post.

---

As far as Budja goes, it was and is still his inital move that left me feeling bad, coupled with his so-so participation and generally vanilla commentary ("omg spring how could you") have kept me in the lynch Budja camp.

This has been consistent throughout the game, but I think it was summed up well here. Budja's defenses were bad, his hunting was non-existant, his position on spring was artifical sounding, his original comment/vote... all of this was being harped on by me.

Spolium, fhq, don, Jebus, and Lynx, so far, are those I think had put a tangible effort at undermining this case at one point or another, be their intentions pure or not.

Don_Johnson: You FoS RedCoyote, but aren't voting anyone right now. Why a FoS? Where's your vote? Looking back I see you FoS Jebus earlier but no vote as well there. Are you afraid to vote?

I missed this at the time, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Especially on D1.

Come to think of it, even after just rereading the thread up to this point, I couldn't tell you who don thinks is town/scum other than he showed a vested interest in undermining the cases against Budja.

[post] 62. general pov, UNVOTE - hard to tell why the unvote here but not scummy, more soft play

hard to tell why the unvote? interesting as i gave two solid reasons. >>

Only after Ice9 provoked you did you give reasons, and your reasons were, I would argue, misleading at best, and scummy at worst.

Your basic reason for the unvote is that you thought Budja explained himself well and that there was a poetry slip up. The facts just don't agree with this, and this is especially bad considering Budja's flip.

I'd like to point out that Budja, FHQ, and Spring have all still not placed a serious vote in this game. Perhaps Spring's lack of a real vote can be chalked up to her lurking move. Though failing to vote in her huge post does stand out to me still where she casts suspicion in several directions. I think FHQ and Budja are even worse with this fact.

This lends Lynx some creditability that I would not have otherwise given him credit for.

If we're approaching a no-lynch situation, I'll vote whichever gives us a lynch. Otherwise, I'll

vote: Budja

on the basis of unhelpful wishy-washy filler posts and the fact that everyone has provided an opinion on him (see above). I'm not entirely happy about doing so as it feels more like a dead-weight vote than an I-am-confident-he-is-scum vote, but my meta argument for him only goes so far. Spring's more recent burst of activity gives her the edge here in my eyes.

Because of how he qualifies this comment, it's hard to give Spolium too much credit here, but this is certainly worth more than don, fhq, or Jebus.

SpringLullaby

Budja

Red Coyote
Fghjdads
Ice9
Azrhei?
Jebus?
Plonky?
Lynx
Goat
Spolium

don's list, contrast this with...

redcoyote and [spring] are sitting atop my list for reasons already laid out. budja? wheres the case on budja? can someone list his scumtells? other than his original "slip" in the poetry phase

i haven't found a whole lot "scummy" from [Budja].

"suspicious", yes, but there are a good number on non contributors in this game right now and that seems to be the biggest mark against him.

i have seen alot of votes for budja, but i haven't seen much of a case.

sorry, but that is my opinion.

(emphasis added to both).

This is what we call a contradiction; This is what we call scummy.

And as for my vote,

vote: don_johnson

.

Very little interaction with don in this game, and this post is the first I have even heard of Budja having problems with don.

If this isn't arbitrary, I don't know what is. The only other think I can think of would be that he was trying to buy good graces from spring, Goat, Spolium, and me by showing that spring is making a good sub-case against don.

But that doesn't adequately explain how he comes to unvote don and vote me in post 302 without don addressing him or his suspicions at all during this time.

Can you say, straw that broke the camel's back?

Ladies and gentleman, based on my observations, don_johnson is mafia.

---

My list:

[Town]----spring--Lynx--Goat----Spolium---DO[∙]-millar--Plonky----fhq-Jebus------don-[Scum]

Lynx and Spolium get special treatment although their names were both heavily mentioned in my reread because I think they were sincerely considering Budja's role during D1. Contrast this with a player like fhq, a player who hasn't been using his vote, who hasn't been as open to other arguments, and who has portrayed the case against Budja inaccurately either intentionally or not.

I would be content with lynching fhq or Jebus today, but I strongly prefer don (that's a 6 hyphen distance!).

---

atm I'm torn between DO for his absurd 'policy vote' suggestion and RC.

Is that really all your basing your vote on today?

Personally I think you would have looked much better if you just conceded on being on the defense for spring.

Then why did you say this?

All in all, [RC] staunch defense of SL is disturbing to me.

Why aren't these statements contradictory?

[RedCoyote]

EBWOP:

[Town]----spring--Lynx--Goat----Spolium-millar--DO[∙]---Plonky----fhq-Jebus------don-[Scum]

Slightly changed my list because I had forgotten that millar replaced Ice9. I considered Ice9 to be leaning town. While millar certainly hasn't done anything to help himself (I'd probably have put Ice9 more townie than Spolium before), I can't justify putting him on the scum side of the scale.

[don_johnson]

intersting post. you completely misrep the circumstances surrounding my unvote of budja. i listed my reasons with my unvote post. not after.

the case on Budja was not as clear as you say. i agreed with some of the interpretations early on, but in my experience townies tend to make mistakes as well and i wasn't willing to push him for it considering some of the other things that were going on in the thread. you also lump posts of mine together(specicfically my post with a scum list and the following one you call a contradiction). there was action in the thread between those posts which led to my "scum list" being adjusted. sorry if i didn't explain that well enough, but your continued defense of spring arose my suspicions moreso than Budja.

your attack on me is pretty vicious.

My whole argument at this point in the game, contrary to the problems other players had with Budja, was that I thought Ice9's vote on WolfBlitzer was, without question, not random.

sorry. i disagree. none of the votes were truly random. the rvs is also referred to as the "joke vote" phase.

My point being that the RVS was long dead and gone before Budja voted, and I hit him for claiming that it wasn't, and I'm hitting don here for, essentially doing the same thing with this quote.

matter of opinion. in all honesty, i felt that my vote was the most serious one and actually brought us out of the random joke vote phase.

Secondly, don unvotes Budja with very little reason for doing so. He never claims he accepts Budja's explanation, he just unvotes, almost as if he never really cared for his vote to be there in the first place

untrue, as is this-

Your basic reason for the unvote is that you thought Budja explained himself well and that there was a poetry slip up. The facts just don't agree with this, and this is especially bad considering Budja's flip.

following were reasons offered at the time of the unvote:

the problem is that you were trying to take us out of the random stage with a vote that was "no worse than a random vote" and "meaningless". this is counterproductive. i have employed similar tactics as town before, so this is not necessarily a scum tell. what ends up happening is that if your target eventually does slip up, your accusations have little credibility due to the fact that other players will see it as the pot calling the kettle black.

i disagreed with the condemnation budja was recieving. also, in regards to the arguments going on at the time:

as for the vote and its "self defeating" explanation, i am not sure i agree with spolium and goat. a vote carries with it an inherent "ability to lynch". saying a vote is a "pressure" vote does not defeat the purpose. the vote carries pressure until said player unvotes, as we have no way of knowing if it is scum or town placing the initial vote. i.e. scum and town can easily place a pressure vote and go v/la, "forget" to remove it, and contribute to a lynch. scum can do so intentionally and hide behind this excuse.

just because budja was playing poorly didn't make him scum in my book. read some of my other games. poor play and misplaced votes do not always = scum. saying i wasn't paying attention is ridiculous considering my post, which you assert contained no analysis on the game, clearly contained my opinion on budja's vote and the surrounding commentary.

Lynx and Spolium get special treatment although their names were both heavily mentioned in my reread because I think they were sincerely considering Budja's role during D1. Contrast this with a player like fhq, a player who hasn't been using his vote, who hasn't been as open to other arguments, and who has portrayed the case against Budja inaccurately either intentionally or not.

so if we're voting on inaccuracy i'd be voting you. i was suspicious of Budja's actions, not enough to lynch him. in hindsight, anyone would lynch scum and that is what you are doing. looking back and saying "this and that" were obvious and everyone should have known. unfair way to push a case. it rests entirely in the knowledge we have now that we didn't have yesterday.

[RedCoyote]

looking back and saying "this and that" were obvious and everyone should have known. unfair way to push a case. it rests entirely in the knowledge we have now that we didn't have yesterday.

Should the town not look back to Day 1 to acquire knowledge that it didn't have yesterday when considering a lynch?

I have more I'd like to discuss with you don, but this is what sticks out most because I disagree 100% with you if that's your argument.

I'll be back later tonight.

[don_johnson]

looking back and saying "this and that" were obvious and everyone should have known. unfair way to push a case. it rests entirely in the knowledge we have now that we didn't have yesterday.

Should the town not look back to Day 1 to acquire knowledge that it didn't have yesterday when considering a lynch?

I have more I'd like to discuss with you don, but this is what sticks out most because I disagree 100% with you

if that's your argument.

I'll be back later tonight.

actually, here again you are dismissing the larger portion of my post and trying to make it seem as if my argument is narrow. i presented several rebuttals to your findings and yet you focus on one part of my post and imply that it alone makes up what is my "argument".

of course the town should analyze day 1. i never implied that to not be viable. however, to look at day1 and assert that it should have been clear then, as clear as it is in hindsight, is fallacious. it is also dabbling in wifom to assume that if i were budja's scum partner that i would avoid his wagon. if his scumminess was as "obvious" as you are claiming it to have been, then most likely his partner(s) are on the wagon somewhere. most likely towards the back end if "lynch inevitability" is indeed a point you are making.

your analysis makes some sense, but i feel you are focusing on contradictory aspects.

[Goatrevolt]

I've fallen behind a bit. Busy week last week and busy weekend. I should have time to catch back up within the next couple of days, though.

[Spolium]

Can you cite where someone said you were a Spring defender as a consequence of not accepting arguments against Spring?
[..]
Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?

Yes sir.

It was

your active criticism of every non-lurking related argument

set against her

that was defensive

, not the fact that you shared opinions of her.

(emphasis added).

The posts that have documented FoSs on me during D1 will follow the same sort of logic, but using your words will make my point a little more clear. I criticized arguments against her, therefore I was a spring defender. I don't agree with that conclusion, and I contend that it is a fallacy.

This is patently misleading.

The Actual Syllogism

Coyote is actively criticising attacks on Spring, limiting their effectiveness
This act of resisting attacks on Spring can be accurately described as "defensive"
Therefore, RC is defending Spring

Question: How do you define "defence"?

As some crazy British word XD

NO REDCOYOTE IT IS "DEFENCE" BECAUSE THE QUEEN SAYS SO

No, seriously I would define

defense

DEFENCE

as a player standing up for another player on the basis of their personal conclusions of them. I don't think, as you may, that a player can sincerely defend a player whom they believe is scum.

IIRC you justified lynching her based on

policy

(i.e. for being lurkhappy). Given that you criticised every attack that wasn't grounded in her lurky behaviour, the notion that you believed her to be scum and could not "sincerely defend" her on this basis is a difficult one to grasp.

Maybe I was defending the public sphere from arguments I saw as faulty?

I have taken this into consideration, though

anyone

criticising a question/case in Mafia could use this as an excuse. Interestingly, it'd be the safest stance for scum to take in your current position.

May I retort with a follow-up question? Do you understand, to any degree, my unwillingness to be labeled as spring's defender, especially at the time, if I was still seriously considering her own position in this town?

To a degree, yes. But then, I'd also expect you to let Spring address the arguments herself. If you were so uncertain about her position, why attack almost every criticism that went her way?

let's just let the town believe that I was the spring defender if only to move this argument along. At the time, I was being suspected for criticizing the attacks against spring because that supposedly made me a spring defender, but now that I've tried to explain that I wasn't a spring defender, nor was I trying to be (and even cited quotations stating in so many words that I couldn't defend her actions), I'm being voted for trying to "backpedal". Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario I got myself into here.

I don't think this is a balanced view of your situation.

What stinks of backpedalling to me is that you started by stating that you approved of her lynch based on policy, then went on to criticise attacks on her at length, then denied that this was "defensive" and pointed back to your comment about the policy lynch, saying "look, I've seen her as a valid lynch all along". But then, you also said that the Spring lynch would be "a bad move on the town's part" because you didn't think she was the scummiest player in the game.

Again, all I see there is a balancing act where you're saying "

guys I don't think we should lynch Spring and all your reasons for doing so suck

,

HOWEVER

,

I approve of her as a policy lynch - I said this way back there - so how could I be defending her if I accept her lynch as viable? Oh btw forget about that time I said lynching her would be a bad move for town, I'm not being wishy-washy at all

"

I'll say one thing though; upon a couple of once-throughs, your extended analysis of D1 appears to be pretty valid. I will have to give it some more attention tomorrow (alas, I've been feeling like shit today).

[Goatrevolt]

Spolium, do you think RC's interaction in regards to Spring was really any different than the way you interacted with Budja?

[Spolium]

do you think RC's interaction in regards to Spring was really any different than the way you interacted with Budja?

Yes, because RC refuses to acknowledge that he was being defensive (which suggests to me that to not be seen as defending Spring is more important to him than he has admitted). Conceding that he was defending her from attacks which he saw as invalid is such a small thing, so why all the hoops? Why the backtrack to "Spring is an acceptable lynch", when he had said around the same time that he didn't think she was the scummiest player and that her vote would be a bad move?

In contrast, my defence of Budja hardly followed the same pattern. I started by stating that I considered his play similar to that in another game and thought the attacks on him were sketchy, fought it out with you/Ice, but when leaving him to his own devices I concluded that he was making no attempt to improve, so voted him based on policy and information gain.

[RedCoyote]

i listed my reasons with my unvote post. not after.

You list invalid reasons that you cannot hope to back up. Show me one piece of evidence in any of Ice9's posts that would prove you and Budja that Ice9's vote was random.

Until you can do that, that reason is faulty. I addressed that.

This goes for every player in this game besides us, but I implore anyone to go look at post 62. don claims there are multiple reasons for his unvote, but I see one reason here, that he bought Budja's apology... and even that I have to only assume through the context with which he makes the post since he never outright says it.

I actually find myself agreeing more with don's second paragraph, but that's beside the point. Regardless of Budja's intentions, he was absolutely not the first person to "try to take us out of the random stage".

there was action in the thread between those posts which led to my "scum list" being adjusted. sorry if i didn't explain that well enough, but your continued defense of spring arose my suspicions moreso than Budja.

Which absolutely explains why you had the right to move me above Budja, and I'm willing to accept that, but when you have someone on your list as 2nd

or

3rd most scummy, given that three scum is extremely probable in a 12 person game, it is expected for someone to consider that person scummy.

If you didn't, as you said, find "a whole lot 'scummy' from him", then why was he number 2 on your list? I can only assume, prior to spring's infamous post, Budja was number 1 on your scumlist given the fact that you were up in arms when I suggested spring might have to be policy lynched for lurking.

In other words, I'll give you credit for moving Budja from 2 to 3 over the period of those posts, but that still doesn't mean you can turn around and say you don't see a lot of scummy in Budja. If you don't see a lot of scummy in Budja, then he shouldn't have been so high to begin with.

sorry. i disagree. none of the votes were truly random.

This is contradictory. You disagree with my contention that Budja didn't have the first "real" vote yet you say the votes before Budja's weren't random?

matter of opinion. in all honesty, i felt that my vote was the most serious one and actually brought us out of the random joke vote phase.

It isn't a matter of opinion, Ice9 made it perfectly clear that his vote was serious. To argue this point is to push a false history of this game. Ice9 even went so far as to belittle Budja when Budja claimed that he thought Ice9's vote was random. If that doesn't explain it to you, then you're just ignoring the truth.

i disagreed with the condemnation budja was recieving.

Like I said earlier in this post, your reasoning is based on the idea that Budja's vote is the first real vote, which is patently false. Budja cannot have been "trying to get us out of the random stage" because we were already out of the random stage. Period.

Now, other players may accept this as a valid reason, but given that I didn't have the problem that Goat and Spolium may have had with Budja admitting his vote was a pressure vote or whatever, I don't take comfort in the fact that you discredit these arguments. To me, you never addressed the real problems I saw with Budja's vote, so to me that looks scummy when I reread this game.

Moreover, I'm not going to make the claim that you are the only player who takes the position that Budja was "trying to get us out of the random stage", because I know for a fact that players like Jebus accepted that notion as well. I take issue with the fact that you so bluntly accept that to be the case, effectively dismissing Ice9 and Wolf's votes as random, and dismissing my argument altogether. I think that is incorrectly reading the game, especially due to Ice9's clarifications, hence I see you as scummy for doing so.

just because budja was playing poorly didn't make him scum in my book.

Again, it's not my concern that you considered his vote bad because of it was a pressure vote or his admittance or pressure or his apology... whatever. None of that concerns me at all. I'm concerned with that fact that you just clean accepted his claim that he was the vote to "get us out of the random stage". I'm not saying my case was incredibly strong at that point, but for you (and Jebus, fhq, Spolium...) to not even acknowledge Ice9 and Wolf was troubling to me.

actually, here again you are dismissing the larger portion of my post and trying to make it seem as if my argument is narrow. i presented several rebuttals to your findings and yet you focus on one part of my post and imply that it alone makes up what is my "argument".

I have more I'd like to discuss with you don, but this is what sticks out most

because I disagree 100% with you if that's your argument.

In other words, that's not the only thing I wanted to address, and I don't appreciate you framing me in that way.

of course the town should analyze day 1. i never implied that to not be viable.

looking back and saying "this and that" were obvious and everyone should have known. unfair way to push a case. it rests entirely in the knowledge we have now that we didn't have yesterday.

I'll let the town decide if that implication is there or not, but I believe that it is.

however, to look at day1 and assert that

it should have been clear then

, as clear as it is in hindsight, is fallacious.

(emphasis added).

Oh no, I hope that's not what you are taking from my commentary. I don't wish to convey such bravado. I think you as scum based on a multitude of factors that I'm only able to see

after

Budja flipped scum, many of my points are dependent on that. By no means do I want you, or anyone, to think that I'm saying, "lol don is obvscum knew it all along".

it is also dabbling in wifom to assume that if i were budja's scum partner that i would avoid his wagon. if his scumminess was as "obvious" as you are claiming it to have been, then most likely his partner(s) are on the wagon somewhere.

LMAO.

don: rc, it is kinda wifom for you to say me avoiding budja is suspicious...
don: most likely scum would be on the wagon

Well don, if I was dabbling in WIFOM, you just dove right in with that one.

And, again, I've never claimed you or Budja was obvscum. None of points are using the fact that I am faulting other players for not getting Budja right. I am of course holding Spolium accountable for his earlier defense of Budja, but that's not because I think Budja's guilt "should have been obvious" but that I'm trying to decide whether or not he sincerely felt he was innocent or was just trying to pretend like he did.

---

This is patently misleading.

[...]

Given that you criticised every attack that wasn't grounded in her lurky behaviour, the notion that you believed her to be scum and could not "sincerely defend" her on this basis is a difficult one to grasp.

Is it misleading or are you not differentiating your point effectively enough for me to be able to tell the difference?

If just criticizing attacks is enough to constitute a defense of someone or something in your eyes, then that's your definition.

Again, I do not subscribe to that definition. If said person doesn't have a

sincere stake

in whatever object or idea he or she is criticizing the attacks against, then they necessarily cannot be labeled as their defender. I did not have a

sincere stake

in spring given that a) I did not know her alignment b) I was supportive of her lynching c) I had criticized her several times earlier in the thread and d) I made it clear that I was not fond of her play.

I honestly don't see how it's all that difficult to grasp. Just because I thought certain arguments were bad doesn't necessarily mean I thought the person who the arguments were being made toward was good, because therein lies the fallacy. I've contended that this is a necessary part of being someone's defender, because otherwise why would I make an effort to defend?

But then, I'd also expect you to let Spring address the arguments herself. If you were so uncertain about her position, why attack almost every criticism that went her way?

It's difficult for you to make this specific argument given the complaints that you were shielding Budja in this way, but mainly because I thought the arguments carried little weight and I thought Budja and fhq were being put on the backburner.

Now getting caught up in the heat of the moment led me to unfairly push Goat's conclusions in ways that I shouldn't have, I'm willing to concede that.

But then, you also said that the Spring lynch would be "a bad move on the town's part" because you didn't think she was the scummiest player in the game.

Yeah, a bad move in comparison to lynching Budja or fhq. I've had that opinion this entire game and never argued that I didn't.

If this town will not budge on spring for a more reasonable lynch (e.g. Budja, fhq, possibly Jebus), then I will also change my vote if necessary.

Moreover, once spring began posting, the was no longer a need to policy lynch her based on lurking. Consequently, I saw her as more townie than I had before, and I didn't see the use in harping back to a policy lynch that no longer can apply.

But what you're trying to imply is that she was my number one townie, which isn't true.

Conceding that he was defending her from attacks which he saw as invalid is such a small thing, so why all the hoops?

such a small thing

RC seems intent on defending townspring

, but he has produced little which proves any of his beliefs. i.e. why is he so sure that SL is town?

[...]

vote: RedCoyote

All in all, [RC's] staunch defense of SL is disturbing to me.

One can only wonder, then, why the focus of

[RC's] defence of Spring

is based on WIFOM.

FoS: RedCoyote

Coyote, I think not buying a case is one thing, but to

go this much out of your way to stand up for Spring

is a little much.

FOS:RedCoyote

Spolium pointed out very recently that [RC] has been

over-supportive of Spring

and I agree with this. This does

seem a bit suspect

to me.

[RC's] getting ridiculous here in [his] defense of [spring].

[RC is] so adamant about defending spring that [he's] unable to reasonably assess the situation.

Or maybe [RC's] scum buddying up to [townspring]... might want to keep that in mind if you're town.

RC just seems to be

defending spring

by casting accusations that don't stick to anyone.

they

lumped several players together trying to create the impression that all the arguments against spring were one and the same when in fact, people had different issues with different areas of SL's play.

(emphasis added to some of the above posts).

Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

---

fhq,

I found this when I was rereading,

Fine, I take [RC's] point about your 'defending' of spring

, but the matter of the fact is that you DO talk a LOT about her, and not much else.

RC, I just don't buy your 'opinion vs defense' argument

(or is that just my opinion?). Personally I think you would have looked much better if you just conceded on being on the defense for spring. This justification of your defense that isn't one is just doesn't work for me.

(emphasis added).

Can you explain?