Mini 761 - Game Over

[ryan2754]

EBWOP: Looking over the given information, and the active lurking done by his earlier vounterpart.

Vote: Panzer

Also, I can't wait to hear from Jazzmyn.

[Zachrulez]

If you're not scum then you're clearly just a terrible scumhunter since I completely blew up those arguments in 204 and then it was confirmed how wrong you were with his death. On the other hand considering how much of a stretch I consider the arguments you, Steph, and Ash put against Amished I'm more inclinced to believe that at least some of that set, you first and foremost are scum.

Clearly this can't possibly connect to my 5th point... not at all.

Note he can't refute the fact that his arguments were poor, he simply tries to redirect attention.

And you can't get a quote tree right. Amished dying and flipping town doesn't make my arguments poor. I don't have to refute anything. My arguments are there in day 1 of the thread. The town can read them and be the jury.

Maybe not "really" scummy, but completely and virulently anti-town? You bet your sweet bippy.

So you're admitting that it's not a scumtell...

I really shouldn't have to explain the importance of the scare quotes around the word really, nor should I have to explain when I call something virulently anti-town that's not meant as a compliment.

I regret that post, but it's not a scumtell.

No, I issued most of these statements on D1 when I voted for you the first time, so while their deaths confirms what I felt; it was not contingent upon their deaths. Unfortunately, I got distracted and didn't go with my gut instinct and fell into supporting an easy lynch. However, just because I made a poor decision does not absolve you of yours.

Ignore my poor decision, focus on my case against Zach. Let's not talk about your possible scum motives for that "poor decision."

We can talk about my mistake, of course my response will continue to be, "I made a mistake, should've played my gut" but feel free to beat that one into the ground all you like so I can condemn you further on the exact same topic.

So I am to be condemned for a mistake, but we should let yours slide? Moving on...

Or I simply didn't find his day 1 behavior scummy. Wasn't it you who said you weren't interested in mislynching townies on day 1? Apparently that CAN'T factor into why I wasn't supporting a Steph lynch on day 1. Apparently it's impossible that I've played with him before and have seen no indication that he is scum based on the read I had on him in THAT game.

It's certainly possible, on it's own it's not a very strong point, but when you consider everything else it's just another thing to be suspicious of. And if you have played a game with Steph before AND you have a pro-town read on him, you should say these things instead of assuming I know your entire game history and how you view players based on that.

Why don't we ask you to explain YOUR defense of confirmed townie Amished? Do you really want to go down this road? That is also in day 1 for the town to read and be the jury on...

I see no reason to wildly speculate on topics of which I have no knowledge. I do not know how or why either Amished or Gateway are dead and I find speculating on such topics to be relatively useless. However, I will use their day one interactions to further help me figure out who is scum.

Oh please, you're using the knowledge that Amished and Wall-E are town as some kind of proof that I'm scum. If anything, your soft support of the Wall-E lynch is a lot more telling than my aggressive play. Yeah... didn't Amished think that was a scumtell? Maybe an underlying motive to kill him, in fear that he might figure that out later. It's definitely a hell of a lot more subtle then the implication that scum has to be either me or Stephoscope simply for our pressure on a dead townie.

I'm not using such knowledge. Most of these arguments are the same ones I made yesterday when Amished wasn't confirmed in any fashion. And hello, WIFOM, how are you doing today? Perhaps you killed Amished so you could claim I was scum killing him to prove my arguments against you. Your argument is ridiculously speculative with absolutely no grounding in reality.

Which is why I followed through immediately at the beginning of the day, arguing that point and voting you... oh wait, that didn't happen, but it sounds quite similar to what YOU did.

Everything in mafia is WIFOM, and players sometimes rely on it too heavily to discredit what makes them look scummy. The trick is to determine what is more likely.

So I only have to ask the town if it's likely that I could have perfectly predicted that you would have attacked me on this line of logic and had my own counterargument to your argument that I was scum pre-prepared? I mean how many layers deep could I hypothetically plan ahead on as scum?

Or... is it more likely that there is something to my side of the argument and that it does in fact have more basis in reality than you want everyone to think?

Look. I think you should be the lynch. I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own. The only difference is you getting lynched outright vs having to explain tomorrow why your case against me didn't lynch scum.

[Zachrulez]

In response to Ryan's post, which was posted close to the point of mine.

You make good points against Panzer.

Your reasons for being skeptical of my Danny case are fair enough. I'm in the unique position of knowing my own alignment and knowing how baseless and scummy his attacks are.

I've made my case, he's made his, I've defended myself, he's defended himself, and it's all there for the town to see. At this point I'm going to simply make an effort to stop reacting to him unless it's absolutely necessary for fear of turning this thread into something that resembles this.

Me: You're scum.

Danny: No you're scum.

Me: No I'm not. You are.

Danny: No, you're the scum.

Me: No you!

Danny: No you!

... and so on.

Also it's probably the best thing for me as I have a tendency to tunnel in and ignore blatantly obvious evidence that someone else is scum while doing it. I'll make my best effort to keep in mind everything else that's going on in the game outside of me and Danny.

[ryan2754]

I see, Zach. The big issue I have with your most recent posts is this:
I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own [lynching]. That statement and behavior is strictly anti-town, and really doesn't sit well with me.
At least your willing to realize your tunnel vision.

[Zachrulez]

I see, Zach. The big issue I have with your most recent posts is this:
I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own [lynching]. That statement and behavior is strictly anti-town, and really doesn't sit well with me.
At least your willing to realize your tunnel vision.

I disagree with the statement being anti-town. Scum should be desperate to prevent their own lynch, not townies. I don't WANT to be lynched, but that is the casualty of scumhunting sometimes when you play this game. When you're a threat to mafia, they want you out of the way.

I suppose it should go without saying though, and I see why you are somewhat bothered by it. (The fact that mafia can say it too.)

[ryan2754]

I guess what I was trying to say was that I don't like attaching two people's lynchings, like you mention. I am always against that notion, that one person is willing to allow their own lynch after/before someone else's lynch to confirm the scumminess of the other. I guess I just don't like the notion of future speak, or mentioning future lynchings (pairlynchings) as more often than not it goes against the town's objective.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I was going to pull apart Zach's quotes again, but his big defense appears to be saying, "the evidence is in the thread, let the town decide" and considering how the evidence damns him I have absolutely no problem with this.

Furthermore, that's a good catch by ryan, if zach is indeed a townie there's absolutely no reason he should be willing to sacrifice himself; a "known" townie for what's at best a toss-up on another player.

[alexhans]

mmm... yep big tunnel vision by the DDD and Zach upon themselves... That's what I thought long ago. And now they're appealing to emotions. Don't trust them. Read (unbiased) by yourselves.

I'd like too hear from Jazzmin too.

[Stephoscope]

- His request for a chronological vote count in 299 just seems weird, given that X has very obviously kept everything in strict alphabetical order all game long. And there's no reason Panzerjager couldn't have figured out the chronology himself, without saying a word, if he really cared about it. Trying too hard to look like he's analyzing things?

Paragraph 4: I don't like this. You got criticized for "scumhunting too far," but are willing to attack someone else for it? Don't like it one bit.

What Panzer did is absolutely nothing like what I did. I found something I thought to be a bit peculiar, so I brought it up. It didn't even feel like "scumhunting" per se, it was more like "wow, that's sort of strange...let's talk about it and see what everyone thinks about it, and who knows what will come up."

What Panzer did was to ask the mod to do something that 1) obviously wasn't part of the game setup and 2) he obviously could have done himself. Making an issue out of it in public seems to indicate there are hidden intentions here.

While the appropriateness of each post can certainly be debated, I hardly think they're comparable at all.

[LesterGroans]

What Panzer did was to ask the mod to do something that 1) obviously wasn't part of the game setup and 2) he obviously could have done himself. Making an issue out of it in public seems to indicate there are hidden intentions here.

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I didn't read it as anything more than a request.

[AshKetchummm]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

[Zachrulez]

I owe this game a re-read. Can't think of anything else to add to what's already been said at this point.

I'll see what a re-read uncovers.

[X]

Vote Count

Debonair Danny DiPietro

: (2) AshKetchummm, Zachrulez

Panzerjager

: (2) ryan2754, Stephoscope

LesterGroans

: (1) Panzerjager

Zachrulez

: (1) Debonair Danny DiPietro

Not Voting

: (3) alexhans, Jazzmyn, LesterGroans

Vote Threshold

: 5

Happiness with Posting Level

:

Satisified

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

So, you're using the Big Lie theory here. That is, using a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

[alexhans]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

So, you're using the Big Lie theory here. That is, using a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

mmmm... DDD I too feel that you've been excesively aggressive and tunnelvissioned with sparks of sarcasm. Just dismissing everyone else's posts... But I know you can play better. I have faith in you

[Jazzmyn]

Panzer and Zach look scummiest to me at present. I'm also suspicious of Ddd, and I won't go any further down my scum list than that at present.

I'm just going to cut and paste from my game notes at the moment because I don't have time to rewrite just now:

Panz votes Steph right out of the gate, saying it's "obvious" that Steph is scum, in the first post of the day, without providing any rationale for his vote.

Steph asks Panz to explain his vote and what is so ‘obvious’

Zach, in 316, purports to answer for Panz - why?

Panz, in 321, then *nods* to Zach and FoSes Lester for being curious about what happened at night.

Lester explains that he is curious because what happened at night is the only new info and asks why Panz doesn’t want to comment on it and why Panz doesn’t want to provide his “obvious” reasons for voting for Steph.

Panz responds with a wholly disingenuous answer, saying “I did. Read Zach's post in which i responded yes."

Except that wasn't true because Panz did not provide his own reasons or any "obvious" reason at all. Rather, Zach answered in place of Panz and Panz just gave a vague *nod* instead of explaining himself by himself.

Panz goes on to say to Lester, "Also, you're only analysing that there was a sk kill, and not who the kills were on. So that either means you don't finad the mafia kill interesting or you already know why the mafia killed who they killed. Both would lead to you know who the mafia killed and being in the mafia.”

It is a huge stretch to take that out of Lester's posts, and looks like Panz is just trying to cover his own butt. Plus, it's hypocritical, since Panz is purporting to say on the one hand, "discussing night actions is scummy" while simultaneously purporting to say on the other hand, "not discussing specifics of night actions is scummy".

Panz says “I'm not commenting on what happened last night cause I try to avoid set-up speculation and mod guessing games. Mod guessing games cause i'm not very good at them and Set-up speculation cause it gives mafia room to wiggle with fake claims.”

More likely, Panz knows who his scum buddies are and wants to toe the (wrong, in my view) townie line that says people should avoid all discussion about night actions. In my (admittedly limited) experience, it is more often scum who promote that view, in an attempt to appear to be town aligned, even though the 'theory' that night actions should not be discussed is not valid in the first place.

Panz says, “Also the kills are the only thing new. The alignment reveals are as well. Why no comment on why they picked Gateway and Amished?”

Um, wait, why is Lester suspicious for not commenting on the scum or vig or sk reasons for choosing Gateway and Amished, when Panz just got done saying that nobody should comment on what happened last night? Again, inconsistency on Panz's part, trying to cast scum aspersions on another player for NOT doing something that Panz just said would be a scummy thing to do.

Panz 324, scummy: “EBWOP: Also, It's not like we are at lylo so me being hasty to lynch isn't a tell.”

By Panz’s own admission here, he wants to

lynch

Steph. It was bad enough that he voted for Steph in the first post of the day without providing any rationale whatsoever, but now he admits that he actually wants to lynch Steph on the basis of his WIFOM view of the night actions.
This is completely bogus. We don’t know whether Steph had anything to do with Amished’s death, and even if he did, that wouldn’t mean that Steph was scum. Plus, Panz is way too quick here to try to assure the rest of us that his wanting to quicklynch someone for no stated reasons whatsoever is "not a scumtell" because we're not in LyLo? This is nuts.

Panz 326: after Lester responds reasonably to Pan’s 324, Panz responds with another nonsense post: “Terribly scummy idea and only scum would benefit from doing such a thing.” Bogus.

DDD 330: votes Zach, ignores everything else that has been mentioned during the new day.

Zach 331: responds to Ddd, says that his case rests solely on the fact that Wall and Amish are now confirmed town and arguing scum on the basis of a nightkill which is full of WIFOM (but why didn’t he say this when Pan voted Steph on the basis of WIFOM?) and says that Dd completely ignored Gateway’s death, and suggests that Amished was part of Ddd’s mafia agenda and the other kill doesn’t concern him. (Again, why didn’t he say any of this when Panz was busily accusing Steph of being scum because of Amished’s death?)

Ash 333: votes Ddd for: “After reading through his post, he seems to bring up very little speculation, and instead, decides to criticize other people, and discuss things that are not really helping find scum. Yet he doesn't mind throwing his vote down." Then, Ash pre-emptively defends his OWN lack of content and his own lack of discussion by saying: “As for my play, I'm not the kind of person that comes in and delivers huge post, I'm here every day and I'm always reading, and I make my comments with something arouses my suspicion, not on every thing that is being brought up, but if I'm asked I'll give my input.”

Players shouldn’t have to ASK you to give your input. You signed up to play the game. That means providing your input, thoughts, analysis, and observations to try to get to your win condition. It doesn't mean sitting around waiting for someone to ask you questions personally.

Panz 336: unvotes and votes Lester, and FoSes “everyone else who is speculating about night” – with another tirade about how it is bad bad bad… and yet, he thinks it’s okay to just come out with a vote against Steph and the comment that Steph is an "obvious" lynch in the very first post of the day, which can only have been derived by him speculating about the night actions himself.

Ddd 339: rubs me the wrong way. Ddd says that if Zach isn’t scum, he’s a terrible scumhunter, etc. Claims to have “blown up” Zach’s arguments on day 1, etc., which is just self-serving, and unnecessary. It is entirely possible that the real reason Ddd was so adamant on D1 that Amished was town is because Ddd is himself scum. Although he makes some good points in that post, most of it just rubs me the wrong way. Particularly when at the end he says that he sees no reason to speculate on topics of which he has no knowledge (i.e. referring to the deaths during the night) and he says that he finds speculating on such topics to be relatively useless (again, scum say this a lot to try to look town). Also, weird phrasing “I issued those statements when…” people do not “issue statements" in this game, people write posts or make accusations or make statements or whatever. “I issued those statements" is such a formalistic way of saying, "I said those things" or "I wrote those posts" that it makes me think that someone is trying way too hard to try to find just the right words to make his posts appear town when he is not. (Yes, I realize this is a bit out there, but come on, we don't "issue statements" in a MS game thread. Lawyers "issue statements" on behalf of their clients when they've been charged and/or convicted of offences. Players speaking naturally and normally do not "issue statements" - we write posts.)

Zach 340: “so you admit it’s not a scumtell” – why do scum so often get over-focused on the characterization of their actions as tells or non-tells?

Zach 341: votes Ddd as an ‘afterthought’ post to his prior post, but says Ddd is “obvscum”. If Ddd is ‘obvscum’, why the vote as an afterthought?

Zach 343: defending Panz again in a response to something Steph said: “I believe Panzer's reaction comes from a position of not wanting to risk power role tells being dropped in NK conversation, which would benefit the scum. I happen to disagree with how scummy night kill discussion is, but I can certainly see where Panzer is coming from." Why is Zach speaking for Panz again?

Alex 346: good post (getting a strong town read from him)

Zach 351: starting to sound like an appeal to emotion.

Zach 352: says Ryan makes good points against Panz and says Ryan’s reasons for being skeptical of Zach’s case on Danny are “fair enough” but he’s in the unique position of knowing his own alignment and knowing how baseless and scummy D’s attacks are; says he’s made his case, Dd’s made his, etc., and he’s just going to stop reacting to Dd unless absolutely necessary. Makes no comment on anything else from Ryan’s lengthy post or any of the other players mentioned; then sort of cops out and says meh, I’m not respond to Ddd any more because it isn’t working out as anticipated.

Ddd 356: says he was going to “pull apart Zach’s quotes again” but Zach’s defence is just that the evidence is in the thread, let the town decide’ and since the evidence ‘damns’ him, Ddd is okay with that. Ddd's choice of language here seems designed to project assurance and confidence in his position: “pull apart”, “damning” etc. but if he is so confident, why does then just capitulate rather than slaughter Zach with all of his quotes, evidence, etc. if he really believed he could. Looks like bluster and bravado.

Ash 360 – again, no content, no analysis, just regurgitation: “Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie. So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.” This begs the question: Ash, have you?

Regards,
Jazz

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

So, you're using the Big Lie theory here. That is, using a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

mmmm... DDD I too feel that you've been excesively aggressive and tunnelvissioned with sparks of sarcasm. Just dismissing everyone else's posts... But I know you can play better. I have faith in you

Sorry, I just keep forgetting that the best technique to find scum is sitting around nicely and waiting for someone to identify themselves as such, they're usually so helpful.

Wrong answer, Alex. I at least find scum by aggressively poking and prodding people who behave in anti-town and scummy fashion. And if I focus on one person it's not because I have no interest in only lynching them, it's because they continue to behave in such a manner as draws my attention.

Furthermore, it's ironic that you call me "tunnelvisioned" in quoting the post where I start looking at another player.

AK's statement basically boils down to the fact that he's voting for me for "not contributing" which is so far removed from the truth that it's in fact several million lightyears away. Because the truth is I've answered questions on mafia theory (see discussion on the "danger" of L-2 as well as my notes on the dangers of scumhunting too hard on D1), I've built a case on an individual I believe to be scum (twice), and I've defended another player from unwarranted attacks. You could say I have an ulterior motive or that something in those posts makes me scum, you'd be wrong but you could make the argument; but there's no way I can be accused of not helping the town without the player making those statements flat out lying.

[Zachrulez]

Don't think it's gone unnoticed that your potential link/buddying argument between me and Stephoscope has changed to me and Panzer today Jazz.

Nor post 271, which layed out conditional groundwork for suspecting Stephoscope based on night actions resulting in a specific death. (Yours) Hated that post.

Nor the fact that your long post of thoughts fueled the case against Panzer, DDD, and myself, who are the 3 major suspects at the time, while conveniently fence sitting with your own vote. I can see you doing this to gauge how the majority reacts to everything, and then choosing to park your vote on the most popular suspect while being able to refer back to 365 and say... hey, this didn't come from nowhere you see.

Consider my eyebrow raised.

[alexhans]

Zach, in 316, purports to answer for Panz - why?

err... because he felt like answering? What's your problem? I know that it's not advisable to answer before the questioned person has answered but sometimes you're there and you think is a really simple answer that doesn't really prove anything.
I agree with you regarding Panz's play up till now has been poor. Especially that he has avoided my questions since twilight of day 1.

Panz goes on to say to Lester, "Also, you're only analysing that there was a sk kill, and not who the kills were on. So that either means you don't finad the mafia kill interesting or you already know why the mafia killed who they killed. Both would lead to you know who the mafia killed and being in the mafia.”

It is a huge stretch to take that out of Lester's posts, and looks like Panz is just trying to cover his own butt. Plus, it's hypocritical, since Panz is purporting to say on the one hand, "discussing night actions is scummy" while simultaneously purporting to say on the other hand, "not discussing specifics of night actions is scummy".

QFT
regarding 339: maybe he IS a lawyer I think that the semantics point is smoke. As well as Stephs “plenty” issue.

Zach 340: “so you admit it’s not a scumtell” – why do scum so often get over-focused on the characterization of their actions as tells or non-tells?

DDD and Zach's back and forth really look like a lawyer/defendant argument on the stand.
----------------

Sorry, I just keep forgetting that the best technique to find scum is sitting around nicely and waiting for someone to identify themselves as such, they're usually so helpful.

What would we do without your sarcasm DDD? Don't twist my words. I didn't say that.

Furthermore, it's ironic that you call me "tunnelvisioned" in quoting the post where I start looking at another player.

Good for you. But before it you acted tunnel visioned... and your attack on him could've been a bit softer. Not so emotional. Give cold arguments that can be answered. Not just screams of: You're scummy ! ARGH!!

DDD 330: votes Zach, ignores everything else that has been mentioned during the new day.

That's what I meant with the tunnel vision... but go on... Investigate everyone. And loose the sarcasm please. Don't let a mod kill (in another game) anger you sorry. It WAS funny.
Don't worry... I don't think Ash (better than AK, that's hard to understand) has a strong case against you DDD.
-----------------------

Don't think it's gone unnoticed that your potential link/buddying argument between me and Stephoscope has changed to me and Panzer today Jazz.

Nor post 271, which layed out conditional groundwork for suspecting Stephoscope based on night actions resulting in a specific death. (Yours) Hated that post.

Nor the fact that your long post of thoughts fueled the case against Panzer, DDD, and myself, who are the 3 major suspects at the time, while conveniently fence sitting with your own vote. I can see you doing this to gauge how the majority reacts to everything, and then choosing to park your vote on the most popular suspect while being able to refer back to 365 and say... hey, this didn't come from nowhere you see.

Consider my eyebrow raised.

QFT. Basically Jazz. Don't consider yourself out of inquiry. Conspicous didn't write anything useful in 8 pages (he was probably busy I'm not condemning him). You also voted right after DDD had and left Wall-e for the hammer.

If Wall-E's claim is true, that's unfortunate but it will still give us information for tomorrow once things can be analyzed after his flip.

No one dared to listen to me when I said that I didn't feel Wall-e as scum. I guessed he was just playing badly. Anti-town.

[X]

Vote Count

Debonair Danny DiPietro

: (2) AshKetchummm, Zachrulez

Panzerjager

: (2) ryan2754, Stephoscope

LesterGroans

: (1) Panzerjager

Zachrulez

: (1) Debonair Danny DiPietro

Not Voting

: (3) alexhans, Jazzmyn, LesterGroans

Vote Threshold

: 5

Happiness with Posting Level

:

Disappointed

[Jazzmyn]

Don't think it's gone unnoticed that your potential link/buddying argument between me and Stephoscope has changed to me and Panzer today Jazz.

It is not a "change" on my part, Zach, but on yours. Yesterday, you were defending or buddying up to Steph and today you are answering for and defending or buddying up to Panz. I'm simply making note of and commenting upon your actions.

Nor post 271, which layed out conditional groundwork for suspecting Stephoscope based on night actions resulting in a specific death. (Yours) Hated that post.

Mere words cannot adequately express how little I care that you "hated" a post I wrote. But I am very interested in hearing the thought process that makes you think I post things for purposes of having them go unnoticed. Quite the contrary. I post what I think because I want my thoughts and observations to be read and, by definition, noticed.

Nor the fact that your long post of thoughts fueled the case against Panzer, DDD, and myself, who are the 3 major suspects at the time, while conveniently fence sitting with your own vote. I can see you doing this to gauge how the majority reacts to everything, and then choosing to park your vote on the most popular suspect while being able to refer back to 365 and say... hey, this didn't come from nowhere you see.

Or, you could read what I actually wrote and see that I clearly set out that:

I won't go any further down my scum list than that at present. I'm just going to cut and paste from my game notes at the moment because I don't have time to rewrite just now

As I indicated, I didn't have time last night to do further analysis of my game notes and suspicions in order to determine which of my suspects ought to garner my vote, and I would certainly not vote without doing so. Again, though, I don't know why you think that I post for purposes of having what I write go unnoticed. The very purpose of writing my posts is for others to read them. I would be terribly disappointed if they went unread and unnoticed.

Consider my eyebrow raised.

This conjured up a mental image of Stephen Colbert. I grinned.

err... because he felt like answering? What's your problem? I know that it's not advisable to answer before the questioned person has answered but sometimes you're there and you think is a really simple answer that doesn't really prove anything.

In some instances, it is perfectly acceptable, but not when the question relates to a specific player's reasons for casting a vote. In this case, Panz voted for Steph without providing reasons and Zach jumped in to provide an answer to a question that he had no business answering on Panz's behalf.

Basically Jazz. Don't consider yourself out of inquiry. Conspicous didn't write anything useful in 8 pages (he was probably busy I'm not condemning him).

I wouldn't dream of considering myself beyond inquiry. Whatever gave you that idea?

You also voted right after DDD had and left Wall-e for the hammer.

Um, what? I put Wall-E at L-1 on March 30 because I believed him to be scum. He was subsequently unvoted by Panz on March 31, voted by Steph on April 1 (putting him at L-1), unvoted by Gateway and re-voted by Gateway on April 1 (putting him at L-1), and then Panz hammered him on April 2. So, I'm not sure that I understand your point here. Please explain.

Also, having reviewed the thread and my game notes again,

Vote: Panzerjager

Regards,
Jazz

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry, I just keep forgetting that the best technique to find scum is sitting around nicely and waiting for someone to identify themselves as such, they're usually so helpful.

What would we do without your sarcasm DDD? Don't twist my words. I didn't say that.

You criticized my play faulting it for it's aggressiveness. If my play is faulty because it's aggressive then the implication is that to improve my play I should shift to a more passive style. As the sarcasm points out this is sub-optimal strategy and thus your criticism of my aggresiveness is unfounded.

Not so emotional. Give cold arguments that can be answered. Not just screams of: You're scummy ! ARGH!!

The cold arguments are contained in post 330. Zach addressed them, I countered by arguing against his rebuttals. My tone may seem harsh, but don't let that distract you from the facts I'm presenting.

And loose the sarcasm please.

No, it can be an effective tool and it allows me to blow off steam.

Don't let a mod kill (in another game) anger you sorry.

I was plenty sarcastic before that, thanks. But feel free to keep discussing an ongoing game and maybe get yourself modkilled and then you'll see how funny it is.

Don't worry... I don't think Ash (better than AK, that's hard to understand) has a strong case against you DDD.

I wasn't worried, the point that should be considered isn't how Ash's statements reflect on me because his arguments are complete falsehoods, but what possible motives and reasons Ash would have for making such a blatantly false post. So far the only explanation I can come up with is that he's scum.

[AshKetchummm]

I wouldn't say there "falsehoods", it's just how I interpret your game play thusfar, and of course you may not agree with them, but they are my thoughts...

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I wouldn't say there "falsehoods", it's just how I interpret your game play thusfar, and of course you may not agree with them, but they are my thoughts...

Great, then you can interpret for me how the things mentioned here...

AK's statement basically boils down to the fact that he's voting for me for "not contributing" which is so far removed from the truth that it's in fact several million lightyears away.

Because the truth is I've answered questions on mafia theory (see discussion on the "danger" of L-2 as well as my notes on the dangers of scumhunting too hard on D1), I've built a case on an individual I believe to be scum (twice), and I've defended another player from unwarranted attacks.

You could say I have an ulterior motive or that something in those posts makes me scum, you'd be wrong but you could make the argument; but there's no way I can be accused of not helping the town without the player making those statements flat out lying.

Do not help the town. Thanks.

[Stephoscope]

A few of Ash's posts seem a bit strange to me. Read these posts (boldface mine):

333:

Vote Danny
Reasoning--

After reading through his post, he seems to bring up very little speculation, and instead, decides to criticize other people, and discuss things that are not really helping find scum. Yet he doesn't mind throwing his vote down.

As for my play, I'm not the kind of person that comes in and delivers huge post, I'm here every day and I'm always reading, and I make my comments with something arouses my suspicion, not on every thing that is being brought up, but if I'm asked I'll give my input.

360:

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie. So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

OK, here's what's strange about these posts to me.

Look at them in context...

Who exactly is he talking to?

The bold part is the strangest to me...he seems to be answering a question about "his play" that

wasn't asked by anyone

. LesterGroans had mentioned some suspicions of Ash in 305, but hadn't gone into any details, and Ash had already responded to this in 307.

Compare these posts to 140, 199, 219, and 231, where it's quite clear whom Ash is addressing. (Also, clearly Ash is talking to DDD in his most recent 372.)

A bit too nervous after someone became suspicious of him?

LesterGroans, what is your current read on Ash? I thought you let him off waaaay too easily in 334, especially considering he mysteriously answered your question before you asked it.