Newbie 767 - Game Over!

[delathi]

It seems to me like we've got a lot of data about scum from last night's vote. Assuming both scum voted for Muzz (and that seems like a safe assumption to me), and since one of the voters is now dead, we now have a good array of choices for who may be scum. Let's start hearing some explanations from Mickey77, Archaist, Korlash and Platypus. I'm not hearing any explanations for their votes. And at least two of those people were already on my FOS list.

You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

What's next to obliquely assume your innocence? Scum has to have a name starting with a vowel, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

Although, I do tend to agree that it is extremely likely that at least one scum was on the wagon, I'm not going to be ignoring those who weren't.

[Archaist]

You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

Good point. Going along with my previous argument about MordyS trying to paint himself as town by saying "my fellow townies" I think we can see that he is trying very hard to put himself in the best light.

Vote: MordyS

[Phelan]

But I went back and reread your posts, and you were actually attacking him before, on post 252. Why didn't you vote for him then?

Can't be 100% certain unless I go back and reread it all and I'm not going to do that now but I assume because I didn't feel I had enough to vote him and/or I didn't feel the vote mattered at the time. I am not the type of player that feels the need to use my vote every single time. i often multitask, attacking multiple people at once, and thus the vote is just a distraction. It's also why I self vote day 1 and often end up leaving my vote on myself. Day one is the day I jump around the most, and so the vote is even less useful.

But that's just how I play. A lot of people always use their vote and that's cool too.

Okay. I'll try and read some of your games during the weekend to confirm it.

To be honest, I still think your case on Muzzz wasn't bad, and I was reaching when I asked about the bandwagon. But given that I now know he was a townie, and the above, I'd like to know why you were pushing so hard for his lynch.

... Because I had a good case on him...

I was expecting a bigger response, maybe a case recap... But yeah, he was behaving strangely.
Just one more thing about your case: Did it depend in anyway on Porkens being his scum partner? You mentioned that it was likely.

Also, just an FYI IC tip. Don't use the phrase "to be honest"... There are some people who tend to view it as a scum tell, and it also gives the impression you aren't in fact being honest. Like I said, just a tip.

Thanks. It's something I use(along with "to tell the truth") way too often in real life as well.

I don't want to start associating without a scum body for proof, but you two are making it hard.

Are you talking about associating me and Plat? because Associating me and Plat right now is kinda a stretch. The only real thing is we both were on Muzz's wagon, and you have already admitted my case was good, meaning me being on it is completely justified.

There were two other people on the Muzzz wagon, but none of them were as active in pushing the lynch as you two.
Muzzz also called our attention to this:

(...)

Platypus

His "I don't like giving reasons" stinks. In particular cases it can be justifiable for a townie to want to keep something to themselves. But saying you don't want to give reasons in general is just not pro-town.
I also didn't like his supposed reason for voting me. And how he suddenly stopped pushing it while the both of us were still arguing.

What I find particularly funny about that is that he stopped right after Korlash voted for me.

(...)

It also seems to me you never really attacked Platypus. Am I wrong?

But perhaps I am getting too paranoid. Assuming that both scum were in the bandwagon might be too much. Maybe even assuming one was could be wrong.
Do you think there were scum in the bandwagon? Is it likely for scum to be on any given bandwagon?

I probably also need to reread the whole thread to see if the new knowledge brings something up.

I'd still like replies from Platypus, MordyS and Mikey to my previous post. Especially the last two, since they have posted after it. Did you miss it?

[Phelan]

There were two other people on the Muzzz wagon, but none of them were as active in pushing the lynch as you two.

Correction: three. Forgot about Mikey. I really can't count today.

Also, now that I have a new post open, is there any reason for you guys to keep misspelling my nick?

[Mikey77]

Mikey, this is a newbie game, so us messing up is expected. Given that, did you notice that your vote on Muzzz would be the final, and that he would be lynched? What were your reasons for finding him suspicious?

I did not know that my vote would be the hammer vote, I thought that it would put Muzzz one vote away from a lynch. I was trying to see his reaction to that, but I didn't double check the vote count...
Stupidity on my part, but as has been suggested, I'm going to try to stop staring at my feet to make sure i don't trip and look up to see if I'm in the middle of the highway (weird way of putting it, i essentially mean that I'm going to try to stop worrying and just go ahead).

Correction: three. Forgot about Mikey. I really can't count today.

Well, at the very least you weren't voting...

Let's start hearing some explanations from Mickey77, Archaist, Korlash and Platypus. I'm not hearing any explanations for their votes.

MordyS- There you have it, i have said the reason behind my vote earlier in this post:

I did not know that my vote would be the hammer vote, I thought that it would put Muzzz one vote away from a lynch. I was trying to see his reaction to that, but I didn't double check the vote count...

Mikey77 : Was your hammer based on anything you had actually seen, or just the fastest way to get to the Night?

As i said before then quoted for convenience, I did not know that it would be a hammer vote at the time. I would have unvoted when muzzz stated that it was the hammer, but I did not see that until the thread was locked.
Also, I am not sure if an unvote would have counted as the day would have been considered over, even if the Mod had not yet actually locked the thread.

Note: my earlier post of 'because someone has to get lynched eventually' did not mean that i was going to hammer and move the game to nighttime, I wanted him to react and provide more evidence and/or scumtells. I just don't get roleclaiming- any scum could just say 'I'm a townie don't do it' and then be careful about posting due to the warning; At least until someone else fell under suspicion and draws away votes.

MordyS- I gotta say that if i were in your shoes i would have done the same thing- The people in Muzzz's (bandwagon?) should be checked for scumtells. I am Pro-Town, but feel free to check my posts. I'm still trying to learn, so if I say anything stupid then i need to know what i said and why so that i can avoid that in the future.


You're "pro-town" or you're town? I mean it seems kinda off for a townie to call himself "pro-town" instead of simply town, where-as the mafia aren't town, they are just hoping to look "pro-town" and thus it makes sense for them to use that word without thinking. Comments on this?

Alright then, i got kinda confused... I literally meant trying to help the town (townies), so that it would read 'I am trying to help all townies, but feel free...' My bad.

I do think you should start focusing less on being a newbie and fear of messing up and just play the game. The more you worry about making a mistake, the more mistakes you will make.

thats a very good point, trying to do that.

And uh, I know you can't, but you're the first wagoneer that should go under scruity. Not only were you the hammer, but you hammred relitively quick after replacing in with the only reason for it being "someone has to get lynched"...

See the rest of my post- I'm getting sick of all these quotes... And quoting this post in itself for convenience was pointless too... Ah well... I'm not going to go back and delete it, just because i have a lot of things I have to reply to, I've been pretty busy recently.

Mordy, why the absence? Your last post was on April 14.

Going along with my previous argument about MordyS trying to paint himself as town by saying "my fellow townies" I think we can see that he is trying very hard to put himself in the best light.

It seems to me like we've got a lot of data about scum from last night's vote. Assuming both scum voted for Muzz (and that seems like a safe assumption to me), and since one of the voters is now dead, we now have a good array of choices for who may be scum. Let's start hearing some explanations from Mickey77, Archaist, Korlash and Platypus. I'm not hearing any explanations for their votes. And at least two of those people were already on my FOS list.

You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

What's next to obliquely assume your innocence? Scum has to have a name starting with a vowel, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

Although, I do tend to agree that it is extremely likely that at least one scum was on the wagon, I'm not going to be ignoring those who weren't.

FoS: MordyS

I'm trying to not charge into a blind vote again, but Some very good points have brought Mordy into a suspicious light, and I believe that that has warranted closer scrutiny of his posts, at least until a clear case for scum or town emerges for further action.

[Korlash]

It seems to me like we've got a lot of data about scum from last night's vote. Assuming both scum voted for Muzz (and that seems like a safe assumption to me), and since one of the voters is now dead, we now have a good array of choices for who may be scum. Let's start hearing some explanations from Mickey77, Archaist, Korlash and Platypus. I'm not hearing any explanations for their votes. And at least two of those people were already on my FOS list.

....

1: You never asked for us to explain our votes. So no duh you haven't heard it.

2: Unless you prove my case on Muzz was bad I don't need to explain it, myvote was freaking justified.

3: Assuming both scum voted for muzz is stupid. I made his lynch so plausable it's possible neither scum were on it. We as a town should assume one scum was on it for now. This means no lynch today can or should be based soley on who someone voted. How and why they voted though... that's a different story.

Okay. I'll try and read some of your games during the weekend to confirm it.

Alright try to stick to games I didn't replace into because my strategy in those games would be different. (No random vote phase to stick the vote on myself for example)

I was expecting a bigger response, maybe a case recap... But yeah, he was behaving strangely.
Just one more thing about your case: Did it depend in anyway on Porkens being his scum partner? You mentioned that it was likely.

It did not "depend" no. I ound Muzz plenty independantly scummy. Although had he flipped scum I would have been pushing Pork as his partner early today. I brought it up as often as I did because I was sure they were he scum and because of that I was fairly certain I would have been the NK.

There were two other people on the Muzzz wagon, but none of them were as active in pushing the lynch as you two.
Muzzz also called our attention to this:

So you're saying the other two were less acive... and that makes them more town? I would hink that makes them the best suspects.

It also seems to me you never really attacked Platypus. Am I wrong?

I don't think I ever did attack him very much. I believe I had one stretch of time where I grilled him over something but I could be mistaken. I believe right before I started my attacks on muzz he and I think Arch were my top two but not for anything major.

And FYI, PD is the only other person I have played with recently so my views on him will be slightly different then on anyone else as I am using that game as well. Not that that's an excuse mind you.

But perhaps I am getting too paranoid. Assuming that both scum were in the bandwagon might be too much. Maybe even assuming one was could be wrong.
Do you think there were scum in the bandwagon? Is it likely for scum to be on any given bandwagon?

Seeing as how it was a day one lynch, it's perfectly logical to assume one scum was on it. But of course there are other factors that could potentially have left both scum off but it's never a good idea to assume that.

And of course there is no proof both scum weren't on the wagon either. So it's still possible both scum could be amoung the four of us on the wagon.

MordyS- There you have it, i have said the reason behind my vote earlier in this post

Sadly that excuse won't make anything go away. The "oops... i didn't mean to hammer..." excuse might actually get you into more trouble. It's very anti town to vote without checking the vote count, and it's very scummy to hammer someone and then claim to have not meant to.

[Mikey77]

Well, talking to my friend:
Me: Well, I did something idiotic and need some advice...
Friend: Wait, wait... Lemme guess: you hammered?
Me: Well, ya...
Friend: and did he turn out to be a townie?
Me: ya...
Friend: wow, you're screwed. Sorry, no advice here.
Me: oh shit...

ah well... I'll try to ride it out until an angry mob strings me up on a tree or an annoyed scum stabs me in the face... Anyways, writhing around in the quicksand-like shit pile is definitely a bad idea, and probably exactly what i will do.

Sorry, I'm half asleep and my english is going downhill... My French is getting better, and my Thai is too (I'm half thai) but the fact that I'm getting ready to go to Thailand is putting my English a lagging second behind Thai.

I've played a game of mafia, screwed up, and now I'm going to drag my sorry ass through the consequences. And I have definitely learned one thing: just try play and don't worry the entire time.

I'm not dead yet, so I'll try to live for an extra few pages.

[MordyS]

You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

Are you kidding me, delathi? I don't want to be cruel, but you're either obtuse or disingenuous. I'm suspicious of people who voted for the innocent towner for reasons I thought were poor. Therefore, because I did not vote for him, I am the suspicious one? Dude, you've got flawed logic. I don't think anyone, ever, could make an argument that asinine.

[Korlash]

Are you kidding me, delathi? I don't want to be cruel, but you're either obtuse or disingenuous. I'm suspicious of people who voted for the innocent towner for reasons I thought were poor. Therefore, because I did not vote for him, I am the suspicious one? Dude, you've got flawed logic. I don't think anyone, ever, could make an argument that asinine.

Oh this is hardly the mot asinine attack you'll see on this site.

But more to the point, it's easy to say you're suspicious of people for their poor reasons when you haven't told us which reasons or why they were poor yet. Would you like to start backing up your suspicions now or are you going to avoid me again?

I'm also noting how you completely overlooked mypost, Arch's post, and Mikey's post and more importantly the stuff directed at you and choose to instead focus only on Del's little twist of lemon. (Should think of a funner metaphor) I'm all for calling people out when they post bad stuff but that's no excuse to avoid the good stuff...

[MordyS]

My suspicion is simply that among those who lynched the townie on a bandwagon (one that formed quickly, without much conversation, and with little proof), we'd likely find a scum or two. I explained why I was suspicious of Wolf (now Mikey) yesterday, as well as Platypus. I'm not really sure what stuff directed at me I tried to avoid. Basically any accusation against me has come down to a Too Townie argument.

But I'm willing to entertain any questions. I've got nothing to hide. Ask away, I'll try to answer anything I may have inadvertently missed. (Why I was missing for a few days -- it was the end of the Passover holiday and then the restart of University. I thought I actually poked in once or twice before the day ended and then I was silent for obvious reasons.)

[Platypus_Dude]

I'm not sure why everyone is missing this but Mikey hasn't said why he found Muzz, Porkens, or Mordy suspicious. Also:

I literally meant trying to help the town (townies), so that it would read 'I am trying to help all townies, but feel free...' My bad.

You still aren't saying you're a townie...

As for being quiet during Muzz's lynch, I agreed with enough of the points against him, but I had nothing to add.

MordyS: You've been pointing out things scum might be doing, and you are always not involved. Also, what about Mikey's hammer makes you suspicious of him?

I still need to do a more in-depth read through of the lynch.

[Phelan]

I'm not sure why everyone is missing this but Mikey hasn't said why he found Muzz, Porkens, or Mordy suspicious.

Actually, he posted about MordyS on 379. He used other people's comments as his reasons, the way I read it.
But it is a good question:
Mikey, why did you find Muzzz, Porkens and Mordy suspicious? If possible use your own words, and quote or give post numbers for what made you feel that way.

As for being quiet during Muzz's lynch, I agreed with enough of the points against him, but I had nothing to add.

You could have added your agreement. Korlash said he agreed with Archaist's point.Why didn't you do it?

But given that I now know he was a townie, and the above, I'd like to know why you were pushing so hard for his lynch.

And the same question goes to Platypus.
Besides that misquote that you defended from with your 'Code of Honor', you voted on Muzzz because of a joke he made, when he was supposedly even with delathi according to you, and then went toe to toe with him.

Why?
I'd still like a reply to this. I don't think you need a reread to reply to it.

There were two other people on the Muzzz wagon, but none of them were as active in pushing the lynch as you two.
Muzzz also called our attention to this:

So you're saying the other two were less acive... and that makes them more town? I would hink that makes them the best suspects.

Note: There were three others, not two.
It would, but Porkens has now flipped town, and Mikey seemed a real newbie. As for Archaist, I had a town read on him. I'll have to check his posts.
What surprised me about the lynch was how quick the bandwagon was, and when it started, so that's why I found the two most active people on it suspicious. My previous suspicion on Platypus didn't help.

[Phelan]

Why is it you are overlooking my actual excuses and instead focusing on something that isn't an excuse and playing it up like one? You're not making the mistake of trying to strawman me are you? *chuckles a little* No... You would never do that...

I picked that line because it stood out to me. Did I ever say that was the only excuse you made?

It was not my intention to set up a strawman attack, but yes, I

would

do that if I thought it would help the town.

This is strange. How do you think a strawman attack would help the town?

[Korlash]

My suspicion is simply that among those who lynched the townie on a bandwagon (one that formed quickly

What's your definition of "quickly"?

, without much conversation

... it was almost the sole conversational topic in the later part of the day

, and with little proof

bull freaking crap. Stop calling my caseon Muzz bad without actually bothering to comment on it. i'm not giving you another newbie pass on this, either back these accusations up or be prepared to take serious heat for it.

), we'd likely find a scum or two. I explained why I was suspicious of Wolf (now Mikey) yesterday, as well as Platypus. I'm not really sure what stuff directed at me I tried to avoid. Basically any accusation against me has come down to a Too Townie argument.

... My accausations against you recently have been far from a "too townie" argument.

But I'm willing to entertain any questions. I've got nothing to hide. Ask away, I'll try to answer anything I may have inadvertently missed. (Why I was missing for a few days -- it was the end of the Passover holiday and then the restart of University. I thought I actually poked in once or twice before the day ended and then I was silent for obvious reasons.)

You have some mouth calling the Muzz wagon on "little conversation" if you were lurking through the entire thing. Good reason or not I put at least double as much into the Muzz wagon and case then you di for the entire later part of the day.

Note: There were three others, not two.
It would, but Porkens has now flipped town, and Mikey seemed a real newbie. As for Archaist, I had a town read on him. I'll have to check his posts.
What surprised me about the lynch was how quick the bandwagon was, and when it started, so that's why I found the two most active people on it suspicious. My previous suspicion on Platypus didn't help.

As Porkens is dead there is no reason to count him, so it is just the two others. I've seen newbie scum do exactly what Mikey did so that in no way makes him town.

[MordyS]

Tell me if I'm wrong, Korlash, but your entire case against Muzz seemed to be that he found Porkens suspicious, but didn't press on those suspicions. You seem to reiterate that argument at least three different times (Most succinctly quoted here: "And that's it... 10 days of almost totally ignoring your top suspect. That makes no sense. You're talking about wanting to lynch him yet you aren't doing anything to help find evidence in order to do it.").

Forgive me, but I didn't find Muzz's suspicion of Porkens without enough evidence to back it up - on the first day no less - suspicious enough to lynch him. There was plenty of speculation and finger-pointing on the first day, and plenty of accusations that still haven't been backed up to any satisfactory degree. Yet Muzz was the person singled out and then lynched. I don't see what needs to be spelled out here: There was no evidence used in the lynching of Muzz. At best there was conjecture, and at worst there was a bandwagon with very little consideration at all. If you feel you had more compelling evidence, please provide it.

W/r/t: "Stop calling my caseon Muzz bad without actually bothering to comment on it. i'm not giving you another newbie pass on this, either back these accusations up or be prepared to take serious heat for it."

I've never asked for a newbie pass for anything I wrote here, nor have, I believe, I been given one. I'm fully aware of my words on this thread. Your case was bad. I didn't comment immediately because; a) I was busy and b) I didn't realize someone would hammer Muzz so quickly. We had already seen someone at -1 votes yesterday (Wolf), and so it didn't seem like such a precipice. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner. Not doing so was a miscalculation. But bring on the heat. I have nothing to hide. Meanwhile I'll be going after the people who lynched a townie and try to weed out the scum.

(And boohoo, that criteria doesn't implicate me as a potential scum. Guess what? I didn't screw up and lynch a guy on a makeshift case. Do you want the best argument that the case was weak? It turned out to be wrong.)

[MordyS]

Re: Posts 375 + 376, both of those are essentially Too Townie arguments.

Relatedly, can we get a vote count?

[Korlash]

First off Mordy, you need to learn to use quotes. Makes thing so much clearer.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Korlash, but your entire case against Muzz seemed to be that he found Porkens suspicious, but didn't press on those suspicions. You seem to reiterate that argument at least three different times (Most succinctly quoted here: "And that's it... 10 days of almost totally ignoring your top suspect. That makes no sense. You're talking about wanting to lynch him yet you aren't doing anything to help find evidence in order to do it.").

It was one point yes.

Forgive me, but I didn't find Muzz's suspicion of Porkens without enough evidence to back it up - on the first day no less - suspicious enough to lynch him. There was plenty of speculation and finger-pointing on the first day, and plenty of accusations that still haven't been backed up to any satisfactory degree. Yet Muzz was the person singled out and then lynched. I don't see what needs to be spelled out here: There was no evidence used in the lynching of Muzz. At best there was conjecture, and at worst there was a bandwagon with very little consideration at all. If you feel you had more compelling evidence, please provide it.

Did you say anything about this yesterday or did you sit there and allow a wagon you disagreed with to happen? And uh, before you counter it with "it was so fast..." I believe I attacked Muzzz for a while before I actually voted him so if you disagreed with the attacks why did you allow them to form into a wagon?

And how do you define evidence? I think calling someone your top suspect and never actually attacking them for anything is evidence. Rebuttle?

I've never asked for a newbie pass for anything I wrote here, nor have, I believe, I been given one. I'm fully aware of my words on this thread. Your case was bad. I didn't comment immediately because; a) I was busy and b) I didn't realize someone would hammer Muzz so quickly. We had already seen someone at -1 votes yesterday (Wolf), and so it didn't seem like such a precipice. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner. Not doing so was a miscalculation. But bring on the heat. I have nothing to hide. Meanwhile I'll be going after the people who lynched a townie and try to weed out the scum.

So you allowed a bad case/attack/wagon to go on... just becuase you didn't feel someone would hammer? So it's fine to attack someone with bad attacks as long as no one is lynched? So you sat there, said nothing, watched as a town was lynched and are now trying to throw the wagoneers into a "lynched town" category... Hmmm... Where have I seen this happen before... Oh right, scum do it. The mafia know who the town are, thusly when they see town pushing another town they can easily sit back and after the mislynch try to throw suspicion onto the others via the "they lynched town" argument. The fact you started today off saying "The case on Muzzz was bad" without saying how shows you wanted to cast doubt onto the people pushing Muzzz's wagon without providing evidence of your own. You then counter me with "you had no evidence against Muzzz." A hypocritical statement coming from the guy calling my cases bad without saying how. Lastly, when called on it, instead of posting my actual attacks against him you instead try to generalize my entire case on muzzz to one attack, one point, hell one sentence and try to play it off like the entire wagon on him was bad because of it.

(And boohoo, that criteria doesn't implicate me as a potential scum. Guess what? I didn't screw up and lynch a guy on a makeshift case. Do you want the best argument that the case was weak? It turned out to be wrong.)

Ah using the fact it was a mislynch to try and further your case... That in no way falls in line with you being scum trying to use this whole mislynch point as the main basis for today. Oh wait, yes it does. My bad.

Vote: Mordy

I believe that makes it L-2... I think that qualifies as turning up the heat. So let's see Mordy how you handle yourself. And... action...

[Korlash]

Re: Posts 375 + 376, both of those are essentially Too Townie arguments.

Relatedly, can we get a vote count?

1: The vote count was 1 for you and 1 for Mikey. It's now 2 for you.

2: How were they too townie arguments? Yet another unbacked up accusation. You need to start using reasons and examples and justifications when you say stuff. Again, quoting is a good place to start.

[MordyS]

It seems like a lot of copy/pasting for self-evident things, but here goes:

[qupte='delathi']You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

What's next to obliquely assume your innocence? Scum has to have a name starting with a vowel, then you can't possibly be scum, right?[/quote]

The argument: Because my arguments (you don't contribute enough, you voted for an innocent Townie) exclude myself, therefore I must be suspicious. Ie: You don't draw enough guilt upon yourself, therefore you're guilty.

[quote='Archaist']Good point. Going along with my previous argument about MordyS trying to paint himself as town by saying "my fellow townies" I think we can see that he is trying very hard to put himself in the best light.[/quote]

A similar argument. Because I referred to myself in a pro-Townie manner, therefore I'm suspicious. A re-iteration of the previous argument: Because you don't act guilty, therefore you're guilty. Perhaps not precisely Too Townie, but a certainly a corollary to it.

And here are a few of your quotes so that you no longer feel I'm simply characterizing you unfairly with one quote.

You wrote Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 3:10 AM, "I have no one tied for anything. Due to my falling behind I can't honestly say I find anyone above anyone else in suspicions level." So, since you admit having fallen behind there, can I safely start there in this analysis?

[quote='Korlash']For one you feel the need to explain yourself before anyone calls you out on it. I have felt this before as town so it's not a purely scummy trend, but it is a little odd for a town to think something he has posted needs to be defended before anyone even read it.

The second thing that is wrong with it is the 'creating discussion' thing. saying "I did it to create discusssion/judge his reaction' are crap. They are lame excuses used by anyone and everyone all the time. They mean shit, and are worth even less. There isn't a single post made in this game that isn't in some way helping to create or add to the discussion. Also, this line of questioning isn't really specifically designed for discussion. It's leaning more towards information gathering, as in you get a list of who feels what way, which I suppose you can use to create or help discussion at some point but in reality it doesn't necessarily spawn any talk itself. [/quote]

Argument A: You defended yourself before you were challenged. Ipso Facto: Suspicious.
Rebuttal A: That's ridiculous. He wanted to explain his actions to make sure that no one was confused by his motivations.
Argument B: Creating discussion is a meaningless argument.
Rebuttal B: At worst, it's a null tell. At best, it's a tell, but a tell that numerous people (including Porkens, off-hand), made this game.

Then, forgive me for not quoting it, but you seemed to quibble with Muzz's use of the word "victim" instead of "lynch target." An ironic sentiment in hindsight as Muzz turned out to be quite the victim of a lynching. Nonetheless, I'm happy to spell out the absurdity here too: His use of the word "victim" didn't indicate much of anything. You wrote during that mini-tiff, "...slips in word usage is a practical scum hunting device I have used efficently in the past." Maybe it's time to find a new device. You seem to be rusty.

On Apr 14, at 4:31AM you wrote, "Why... Well I could go back and quote the back and forths but it seems pretty supid. And you know most of my issues with you..." to Muzz, indicating that he was your number one suspect. As the only arguments since the Apr 13, 3:10 comment were the ones I listed above, I'd say you had a pretty spurious case. But let's keep going on. Maybe you make some valid arguments AFTER this post.

Finally, the argument I believed you were actually making (and listed in my post above) begins to take form Apr 15th, at 1:52PM: You write: "However,... Saying "Porkens is higher up on my suspicion list" and "I may change votes if his lynch seems inevitable" is not alright. Do a little search by author on yourself and tell me when the last time you actually said anything remotely close to questioning him and helping his lynch? I'll help you out," and in the same post, "And that's it... 10 days of almost totally ignoring your top suspect. That makes no sense. You're talking about wanting to lynch him yet you aren't doing anything to help find evidence in order to do it. "

Then at 7:14PM: "You stopped pushing Porkens yet still find him the top suspect... that right there is a ead giveaway your full of BS. And I can know what you did to find evidence because it's all in the thread. Unless you want to say you've been doing some scum hunting outside the game. You can't find evidence to use against Porkens nor can you find any reasons to back up your suspicions on him unless you make comments on his posts and direct questions towards him or his cases."

On the 16th at 1:14PM: "And not convincing other by not saying anything at all is also a logical fallacy. it contradicts the fact you find him so suspicious and want him lynched when you do nothing about it," and in the same post, "How is it you have ignored someone you thought to be scum for a little less then two whole weeks? What, now that you found him you don't need to attack him or comment on his posts anymore? And the way things are going I will lynch you for it, this is a completely logical lynchable offense and you'rre not doing anything remotely close to explain it."

At 11:52PM: "Where did you say his responce didn't change your mind? and is that all you said or did you actually attempt to get new responces from him? Did you say why they didn't change your mind?

Rubbing him in my face doesn't do anything for your case on him, and calling him out along with other people kinda disproves you find him any special sort of suspicious."

(Sidenote for people keeping track; At 12:12AM on the 18th, Korlash tries to justify a misquoting with: "It would be pretty stupid of me to intentionally misquote him in the same post I literally quoted what he said no?" Yes, Korlash. Pretty stupid, or pretty scummy.)

Most problematic, you wrote, immediately after the lynching and nightkill, "Sorry... I just want to fit in... T_T" Was this a reference to your position on the bandwagon? You're projecting loads of confidence now that you had plenty of justifiable arguments. What was the fitting in? It's particularly noteworthy in light of you're ballyhooing about the fact that I called your case bad. Seems like you knew it yourself.

There, plenty of quotes. Hopefully that'll force you to contend with what's actually going on instead of demanding proof for things that seem evident in the log history.

[MordyS]

And that's why I don't use quote tags. I always mess them up. C'est la vie.

[Platypus_Dude]

You could have added your agreement. Korlash said he agreed with Archaist's point.Why didn't you do it?

1. It's sort of spammy to only post 'I agree'.
2. Someone was attacked in a game that I read for posting '^ agree' or 'This.'
3. Korlash didn't only post 'I agree..' He also had more to attack Muzzz on.

TEXT

You need to replace the ' with "

Mickey77 hammered that vote, so he gets the first one today, Vote Mickey77, though I'm so strongly FOS on Platypus that I wrote a post just now explaining why I was voting for him before deciding that Mickey77 was a tad more suspicious. Time to weed out the scum.

Why didn't you say anything about Korlash's weak argument here?

[Claus]

Vote Count

MordyS 2 - Archaist, Korlash
Mickey77 1 - MordyS

Not Voting:

Platypus_Dude, Mickey77, Phelan, Delathi

With 7 people alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

[delathi]

MordyS : the argument isn't that you are 'too town' it is that you are ingrationatingly proclaiming your township and then arrogantly attacking anyone who dares to question it.

[MordyS]

Forgive me, delathi, but that's

not

the argument you're making. When I wrote that we should be concentrating on those who lynched Muzz, I wasn't "ingratiatingly proclaiming [my] township." And when I casually mentioned my Townie affiliations on Day One, that wasn't ingratiatingly either. It was fairly by-the-way.

My real problem with this argument, though, is that we now have some actual evidence to analyze. Let's pretend that I do ingratiatingly proclaim my township and then arrogantly attack anyone who dares to question it. How exactly is this more suspicious than someone who lynches a Townie? I can see making this argument on Day One, when there is little else to go on. But why concentrate on it now? Maybe I've played this game arrogantly. I don't see what that has to do with my allegiance.

[delathi]

Forgive me, delathi, but that's

not

the argument you're making. When I wrote that we should be concentrating on those who lynched Muzz, I wasn't "ingratiatingly proclaiming [my] township." And when I casually mentioned my Townie affiliations on Day One, that wasn't ingratiatingly either. It was fairly by-the-way.

My real problem with this argument, though, is that we now have some actual evidence to analyze. Let's pretend that I do ingratiatingly proclaim my township and then arrogantly attack anyone who dares to question it. How exactly is this more suspicious than someone who lynches a Townie? I can see making this argument on Day One, when there is little else to go on. But why concentrate on it now? Maybe I've played this game arrogantly. I don't see what that has to do with my allegiance.

And that is why I haven't voted for you yet. I,m determining if you are a scummy mafia or just an arrogant townie