Newbie 785 - Game Over

[Shotty to the Body]

Okay there's a few posts I want to reply to, so you'll just have to bear with me as I go through this. I'll separate by post to keep things simple.

[Shotty to the Body]

Cyren is confusing me a little. I said don't quick lynch, which means the day goes longer, which means we get to see more of the inconsistencies I talked about, I don't see how those are contradictory.

My mistake, when I read it the tone in my head was you saying more inconsistencies was a bad thing.

Post 215...... When I first started reading this post I was glad. Even if its a PBPA that everyone is doing now, you're giving your opinion and backing it up. I don't even mind I'm a suspect. I'll address that part now.

It wasn't a double standard. The two scenarios are just different. Qwints voted because Falko's post sounded like he was saying "I won't participate till blah blah". And they stated why they thought it was scummy. Someone choosing to not participate, hurts the game. Falko however doesn't disappear and still posts. Main difference I was supporting A SINGLE pressure vote. In the text you quote I said if it had gone up I would have said "Falko didn't deserve it" Quints also wasn't asking or trying to persuade others to vote for Falko.

You place a vote on Corn saying "we shouldn't let lurkers slide under the radar" and you call out to people to vote for him too. ONE vote is a pressure vote, but asking others to vote as well (on D1 mostly) is asking for a lynch. It wasn't that you "Put him at L-4" it was the "Come on people don't let him get away with not posting!" sound of your own posts that made me (I don't know Papa's thoughts obviously) accuse you of trying to lynch him. You also don't offer information on other players at the time but center your posts around your vote for CA.

Zito doesn't attack Gadget, just subtly nods agreement with Cyren

while interpreting her responses for Gadget (post 211), as he tells Philly not to post for Gadget, let her speak for herself instead of wriggling away.

This is a grey area for me. I'm not too botherd by what Zito did since he was using it as evidence to back up his own thought process, but in the original case with Gadget and I... I didn't want Phily to start defending himself or commenting on Gadgets flip-flops and my questioning why Phily was "trustworthy" because Gadget could have used anything Phily said to simply say, "I think he is scum/town" because of..." and use whatever Phily had posted THEN instead of explaining his thought process in the beginning. If that didn't make sense just disregard it. I also didn't have anything to wriggle away from. Gadget SHOULD be suspicious of me because he should be suspicious of everyone if he was town, but being more suspicious of me because I built a case against him is BS OMGUS.

Cyren's posts about Gadget have much more meat however and they didn't opportunistically take advantage of a case being made against the person bringing their scummy intentions to the front of everyone's mind, like say Corp's case towards me. Also Zito has been encouraging Cyren's case towards Gadget as well. The fact that he joined second gave him the opportunity to piggy back his opener with Cyren's and mark Gadget as a suspect so he has 'reasons' to agree with Cyren

This is an interesting point. Not sure if I agree with it right now, but its in the back of my mind...

........I was okay and happy with your post until you added the hypothetical future scenarios....

ALL you did was help scum there. Since you wrote that, if you get lynched and end up town all mafia has to do is choose how to best play your hypothetical scenarios off by who they NK and target the next day. For all you know gadget, I, Zito, and you could ALL be town and you just condemned town. Not to mention some of what you said makes no sense. If Gadget gets lynched and is scum, how does that clear Zito and I? Don't answer that but keep it in your head for future reference. IN short you just set up targets for mafia to knock down or you are mafia trying to cast suspicion off you by doing so, OR is a scare tactic. Either way very anti town.

Alright, I'll concede after further thought the future scenarios thing is indeed a logical flaw and rather stupid, so to prevent the scenario Cyren mentioned consider that struck. I guess I failed at communicating my thoughts early on which has been pointed out many times, everyone can consider that as they make their votes. Glad we got the misunderstanding cleared up. More questions are welcome if people are confused about something else I wrote.

[Shotty to the Body]

This post hurt my townie read on Corp a bit.

Let me ease your mind a little.

[1]I do have a slight concern that

if

Shotty is town he has been forced into a situation where he can't really defend himself. [2]If scum lies within you or Zito - he is going to have a hard time building a case because your predecessors lurked and you guys have come straight out at him.

[3]If it lies somewhere else he is going to have a hard time building a case, save for Gadget perhaps. [4]That is why I'm disregarding a lot of the Zito/Shotty exchange in my mind and trusting my original read on the first 160+ pages of dialogue mostly.

1. wat. Townies should always be able to defend themselves. Scum are the ones at a disadvantage here because they have to manufacture things to make mislynches happen. Townies should rarely (can't say never) lie.
2. wat. Cyren and I have both posted massive quantities of content since we replaced. There should be plenty there for people to form opinions of us and build a case if need be.
3. wat. Nothing is stopping him from building a case on someone else. Also, Gadget already has one, why should he build one on Gadget?
4. WAT IN ALL CAPS. If you don't want to comment on our exchange fine (I guess) but to just ignore it completely is ludicrous. There's way too much there on both players to just wave a hand and dismiss it all.

Bad post is bad.

1. Lieing isn't the issue with Shotty. Nor is manufacturing things. What exactly do you think he is "manufacturing"? His case against you? He does make a valid point that you have echoed a lot of my arguments against him, as well as adding a whole lot of other stuff (which I will address in point four). Jumping on my initial case and flogging it into the ground could be seen as scummy (making sure now to tie it all back to me), however I have enough faith in my initial read (another plug for post 167) too look beyond that and trust that you just have the same good read as me.

2. There is some out there - half as much as those that participated before you came into the game. And 99% of your posts are either attacking him or agreeing with his suspicions in 215. The only thing he can contradicts is your attacks on him and a lot of that can be written off with 'you can't just count what our predecessor did' and 'well of course you would say that'. Not leaving much. I say that because I agree with most of Shotty's observations (sans the hardcore suspicion on you and his innocence).

3. Nothing. Again assuming he is innocent for a second, you and I can't see a significant case for them to answer now, so I don't really expect it of others. Especially one who seems to not have the strongest scumdar in the game. But again - I don't give too much creedence to this point because I'm leaning strongly to scum on him.

4. Allow me to elaborate. For a start you are preaching to the converted. When I posted 167 I was 70% sure that my vote would stay on Shotty for the duration of this day. When he didn't reply adequately and practically agreed with the case you can bump it up to 80% - this is before you come in. Reading your discussion 30% of it seemed to be a nit picky discussion about lurking - which I give no creedence to. Another 25% was spent picking at the difference in definition between helpful behaviour and scum hunting behaviour - again I have little interest in this when it comes to voting. In the remainder there was a lot of repeating things ideas I had in 167, as well as a few other ideas.

In essence there was nothing in your discource that moved my already strong opinion on him. Just to reiterate I did intentionally try to avoid giving creedence to parts where you were posing repackaged or similar sentiments as I did in 167 - I kind of want to avoid agreeing with myself and potential group think. Sorry. Please don't confuse not being effected by the discussion to "waving a hand at it".

So to sum things up I was 80% when I posted 167. 85% after Shotty's reply and while your enquries moved you to this point (or something like it) it just didn't move me either way on that scale. I'd say I'm now at 90% after reading this...

Corp - Solidly pro-town as far as I can tell. Done a good job pursuing leads and catching mistakes, good scumhunter though mistaken in this case. Everyone has mentioned why he is pro-town: good analysis, attacks, activity, what not etc etc. I won't reiterate it when no one suspects him. Will have to revise of course as the targets of his attacks get lynched, could be very very good scum.

Possibility of being scum (at this time): Very Low

I know it might be a little in my self interest but that kind of sounds like a gun being loaded at my head. A bit of a set up for "aw wow I can't believe he went" should he make it through the day...

I'd like to thank God someone finally posted about this. Zito's been attacking me with the material from this entire day, most of which was pointed out earlier by others. Zito's predecessor posted a grand total of FOUR posts and only two that weren't "Oh sorry I haven't been on I'll post my thoughts in another 5 days lolz." Not exactly a lot to work with since he got lurk/flake through the day, the thing I was trying to prevent. Now since his replace activity is high, we have something to judge, but since I built the case Zito just throws it out as OMGUS because I'm reading too much into his attacks on me? His arguments are scummy as hell and I'm locked into a corner since I have almost nothing to work with from before. It's hilarious he posts against me for inaction/indecision considering his predecessor did NOTHING but FoS once.

Also I have to agree Corp it is sort of odd to ignore an entire exchange that spans pages and involves numerous walls of text. And I really don't understand how my analysis of you is some kind of loading gun, care to elaborate?

[Papa Zito]

Well, this was disappointing.

We then come to a rather bizarre pair of posts:

I'm not going to interject into the Gadget/Cyren conversation here since Cyren doesn't need my help, but I am going to say that the above solidifies Gadget as my #2.

All - keep in mind that we have a deadline a week from today, so we'll need to start moving to a consensus soon. At this point I'm fine with either a Shotty or Gadget lynch.

I dont think it was that concrete a result. Thats a bit of a stretch Zito.

No? Hmm. I'll explain then. Sorry Cyren, wasn't trying to interfere.

Cyren's basically saying "I'm scumhunting, please don't answer for him so he can wriggle away." ... Second point - I haven't seen Cyren push for a lynch yet. ... Cyren's just saying to pay attention to other conversations, even if you aren't involved in them. Your post is a blatant misrepresentation.

What we have here is Papa not only defending Cyren, but putting words in his mouth. That's quite scummy.

Okay first... Cyren is a she.

Second, have you actually read the thread? I didn't want to get involved in Cyren's hunt, but Phily asked me to explain how I came to my conclusion and that was the only way to do it. If you read Cyren's post later, she even says that my take on it was correct.

Papa further attacks Shotty in 220.

{reposts wall of text}

This post is deeply scummy.
1. He dismisses Shotty's arguments as OMGUS without examining their validity.
2. He attacks a strawman, claiming Shotty supported lynch all lurkers.
3. He attacks Shotty with rhetoric (e.g. huge cloud of smoke, FUD) rather than concrete points.
4. He refuses to engage Shotty's responses, then calls Shotty out for ignoring his points.

Again, first, have you read the thread? There's been another exchange between us since what you quoted.

1. I went point by point and refuted everything he said. Also, irony.
2. Shotty voted a lurker. I made a case about why this is bad. Attack the case if you want.
3.

I went point by point and refuted everything he said.

Clouds and FUD are a general comment on his strategy.
4. Pete and Repeat sat on a log. Pete fell off, who was left? 1, 3, and 4 are all the same, and so is my answer. I went point by point, refuted his remarks, and he has failed to defend.

[Shotty to the Body]

The walls of text, we are building them.

Yes, yes we are.

First, a quick observation: Zito is actively pursuing the only player building a case against him. Coincidence?

Lawl. I started putting a case together on you first. Someone else is already hunting my other suspect.

Lawl, your first post was a suspicion of me so it was hard for me to get any thoughts in before I was "under attack." That was a quick quip anyways.

I laid out several reasons why going after lurkers early on Day 1 is a bad idea in that post. You've failed to address any of them here. This is an obvious attempt to deflect.

You didn't really lay out any reasons, you waved off a reference that townies would want to lurk, but never mentioned any of them. The only reason to lurk is to fly under the radar and avoid giving your opinions or drawing attention to yourself, not exactly pro-town. Not a deflect at all, lurking isn't good for town, especially on day one, period. Going after lurkers gets them to post solves the problem, its not a lynch attempt, its a pressure vote, you still fail (intentionally?) to realize the difference.

I listed three. And townie power-roles want to lurk a bit early on so they don't get nightkilled. See Mastin (Doc) in the game I linked earlier for an excellent example of what happens when power roles take the limelight.

And I've already discussed why going after lurkers early Day 1 is bad, so I see no need to rehash the rest of this.

So are you trying to tip us that your predecessor lurked because he's a PR? Seems like a stupid thing to do if you really are one since that would probably get you night killed. Of course, Mafia don't have to worry about that now do they?

My list is useful. Unless you know all of them, I guess. Regardless, you've completely missed (intentionally?) the point - useful advice doesn't help us find scum. And useful advice, unfortunately, is all you've offered.

A bunch of acronyms are helpful for reading through posts, not for scum hunting. Maybe your version of advice isn't helpful, but actually giving people tips about what is generally the goal of town and how not to shoot yourself in the foot, especially in a newbie game, is actually probably very helpful in scumhunting in the long-run. It's not a baseless attack, but that's all you seem to recognize as useful.

Sigh. You're going to make me do a post-by-post, aren't you? Fine then.

Post 1: Random vote
Post 2: Call me Shotty. (Call me Ishmael.)
Post 3: "I dunno, I wouldn't reach much into it."
Post 4: Waiting for Toledo. (Waiting for Godot.)
Post 5: Advice: Somebody unvote Giskard since he's at L-1.
Post 6: Oops, counted wrong, nevermind.
Post 7: Unvote.
Post 8: Speculates that if PhilyEc is scum, then a lurker is too. Can we prod Cornelllius? Mod says no, he posted recently.
Post 9: Defense against a PhilyEc jab. "I was just speculating"
Post 10: Says he's speculating since PhilyEc "seems to be the hot topic at the moment"
Post 11: Back to Cornellius!
Post 12: Phily is town now. Votes Cornellius.
Post 13: Cornellius is a bad, bad lurker person.
Post 14: Defends against a Corporation jab about Cornellius
Post 15: Asks PhilyEc for more info
Post 16: Where's Qwints?
Post 17: Where's Qwints?
Post 18: Sorry that I've been inactive everyone. (irony, lol)
Post 19: Yay the thread is alive.

Posts 20 onwards were part of the ongoing debate.

I should have done this earlier, I suppose. Bad me. So the grand sum total of your advice seems to be contained in post 5. And the grand sum total of your scumhunting seems to be contained in post {ERROR 404: FILE NOT FOUND.} Oops, there wasn't any.

Guess I have to do my own relook at all my posts now, joyous. (FML for posting in general, now I actually have to pay attention unlike the list of 4 posts in Corn's list.)

1: Random Vote
2: Call me Shotty (Hi Ishmael)
3. See quote above, in response to Gadget saying "Looks like someone is already Retaliating there." (concerning Falko's random vote.)
4. Keeping a vote on Toledo to get him to post.
5. Suggest not lynching so early since I thought someone was at L-1
6. Edit 5, advise not bandwagoning early.
7. Unvote after a post is made by Toledo.
8. Speculates that both scum probably wouldn't step up front like Phily did, so if he is scum the other is probably a low poster.
9. Correcting Phily, I wasn't assuming you were scum. =P
10. Make a mistake by saying I'm going with the hot topic, I just thought I would offer my thoughts on the subject at hand, which I did with my own opinion and idea.
11. Point out that Corn isn't posting and that means either lurking (which I consider scummy) or flaking.
12. Encourage town to branch off of the Phily path, asserting (consistently with post 10) that I thought his quote on quote 'paranoia' was a null-tell and I'd seen enough to mark him as town at that point. Put a vote in (there's that thing that Zito keeps bitching I don't do enough) on Corn to encourage him to post and ask for other's thoughts on him lurking/flaking.
13. Replies to Toledo advocating lurking or at least letting the lurkers go because they might have other commitments. Something to note, though since Toledo had genuine real life issues with posting maybe that was a bit of self-preservation. Again state we shouldn't just ignore someone since they refuse to post.
14. Reply to Corp and call for more opinions on other subjects since I didn't have any substantive evidence that hadn't already been posted. (don't see how I defend a jab since I agreed with Corp?)
15. Phily says he thinks certain people are more scummy and I ask him to elaborate since I didn't see reasons for it in that post.
16. This post was made on the assumption Corn was actually going to start posting again, so I was willing to drop the inactivity thing against him under that assumption. Point out that Qwints disappeared about the time Phily started making strides against him.
17. Thought it was unfair to put so many votes on Qwints without giving him a chance to respond to his attackers.
18. Start posting again after a dead weekend, first time checking since Cyren posted her first wall of text and Corp put something substantive out there to respond to.
19. People posting stuff that matters again, yay.

And I'll stop there. Obviously if you reread the thread you get a better idea of things, but there's clearly more in some of these posts then Zito's half-sentence summaries let on.

Again, you (intentionally?) missed the point - You haven't taken a stand on anyone until you were forced to. Even with this post you haven't fully committed to anything, because even after all this analysis you still aren't voting one of your chief suspects. To me it seems like you're throwing up a huge cloud of smoke, throwing out a couple names and hoping something sticks. If someone does bite then I'm guessing you'll happily hop onboard.

[1]Nice one, if I had voted you would've said "Look, Shotty's just voting someone else to throw our attention elsewhere." Good play since you could complain about my decision either way, hope people see through this obvious ploy. [2]Sorry, I like to actually hear other people's opinions and come to a consensus with them before voting.

1. And you know this how? You saw into the future perhaps?
2. Yes, there was an obvious consensus on Cornellius being scum. Oops, wait, no there wasn't. This sentence is also How To Be a Bad Guy 101: Riding Town Opinion to Success!

1. Yes, watch out for the bus tomorrow. And it's a really cheap, easy, and almost painless way to get in a free shot since you could've complained no matter which way I went without looking too scummy.
2. You still fail to realize the difference between a vote to lynch and a vote to get someone to post. Considering how much you pride yourself on logic this almost has to be intentional since I've been pointing out the difference for days now. It's not exactly riding opinion when I've already posted my thoughts and everyone is free to examine them and comment. Considering I've actually pointed out things that other people haven't, unlike a certain someone, I wouldn't talk to much about being a bad guy if I were you.

Classic scum post. You completely fail to refute what's being said (probably because you can't) and instead try to attack the person. It doesn't matter if I joined first or fifth. What matters if what I say makes logical sense.

[1]Actually, I'm pretty sure I outlined how I refuted what you said, try reading the post. [2]What you say is just an echo of Corp's earlier post with a few rusty bells and whistles tacked on to make it look different. [3]You've done the exact same thing with your position on Gadget by copying Cyren. Coincidence? [4]Classic case of bandwagoning and riding the coat tails of other people's arguments.

1. Actually, you pretty much didn't refute anything. Repeating that you did over and over again doesn't make it true.
2. Prove this. Saying it doesn't make it true.
3. Prove this. Saying it doesn't make it true.
4. Prove... ah, you should get the point by now. Plus there isn't a bandwagon on you yet. For some reason.

I love when a pattern emerges.

1. Lol apparently some people seem to think I made some counterpoints since they've pointed them out and you just keep glossing them over.
2-4. Okay, lets look at the proof. Compare your opening opinions of myself and Gadget to the opening opinion's of Cyren on Gadget and Corp's case against me. Let's look back to the 5 points I talked about in the first post where I analyzed everyone. Right, the part where the reasons that aren't a load of crap are copycats of Corp's case worded differently. Once sure, I'll buy it, but making the same cases as two other people against two players that are the easiest targets?

Logical fallacy. What someone flips doesn't determine anyone else's alignment. The intent of the voter does. Townies mislynch all the time.

Hope you have a lot more lines like this for when you get asked about your townie lynches in the coming days. Intent to lynch town is pretty scummy in my book.

Intent to lynch scummy players shouldn't be.

Is it what you meant to do or what you did that really matters? You can mean to lynch scum all day, but if you lynch a bunch of town I don't think the rest of the people in the game will accept, "Well I thought they looked scummy!" when it comes time to pay the piper.

This is a fantastic paragraph and deserves more breakdown.

1. Translation: He was fine until he started targeting me.
2. Refuted this 'point' above
3. Out of thin air? I examined what you said and found numerous scummy things, none of which you've refuted.
4. I had no idea you were even attacking me. When was this? PhilyEc has been applying the only pressure I've felt so far.
5. lolwut
6. bzzzt

1. Ummm, I didn't even put posts in until after you started targeting me, so there's no standard of comparison.
2. Supporting lurking is fail.
3. Once again failure to read the post or just glossing over things that were said.
4. Pretty sure I was the one applying pressure to your predecessor to get him to post, since your such a fan of lurking once I'm gone you could do the same with less chance of being called out.
5.Lolwut this post contains nothing at all refuting anything I said, just more attacks against me. What was that? A classic scum post someone called that? Oh wait that was you, lol good job.

1. How did I show up as town if there's no standard of comparison?
2. Read plz
3. I read it. I analyzed it. I dissected it. Posting this doesn't make it true. Etc.
4. You pressured my predecessor for lurking. I, obviously, am not a lurker. Hence, no pressure. Phily was attacking me for stuff I said. You should try it some time. Also, your crystal ball is amazing, where can I get one?
5. You had the nerve to claim I didn't use logic. The nerve! It deserved a lolwut.

1. You misread, you say I thought you were fine until you targeted me. In reality, you've been targeting me since you replaced in so you have no standard to compare my actions now to my actions with you before you attacked me since there really weren't any.
2. All your material on this condemns me for getting lurkers to post, I've read it and supporting lurking is fail.
3. You actually ignored most of the post where I analyzed you and everyone else, didn't see any responses to any of the comments made there, just some vague OMGUS wave off.
4. You would think no pressure, but since you continually defend lurking and your predecessor's (few) actions it makes me think there still is some pressure you feel the need to fight against. Yes, the bus, remember and no you can't have it.
5. Maybe you use logic but you sure seem to ignore a lot of things.

So I agree that you can't just ignore what our predecessors did. Part of the burden of being a replacement is that you have to account for the actions of the one you replace. Cyren and I shouldn't be considered "innocent" just because we replaced in, so if you have an issue with something our previous selves said, feel free to question it.

A post any scum would be willing to throw out when he's under little to no fire and realizes his predecessor lurked/flaked so much there's almost nothing to question.

Because a townie wouldn't make that post, right? And let's just ignore the fact that the post completely and totally obliterated your point 6 in that paragraph. Which was, just so we won't be confused: "[6]counting on the innocence halo of a replace to carry him through this day where he hopes I will be silenced."

Of course your happy to make that post, by the way WIFOM that first sentence out. Your predecessor posted FOUR FUCKING TIMES with NO CONTENT. How can we judge you on any of that, maybe that's why I tried to discourage his lurking? I'll do his PBPA since it won't take more than 5 seconds.

Corn PBPA
1. I don't like to random vote so I won't.
2. I'll post later lol (not).
3. One FoS pointing out nothing original.
4. I suspect no one.

How useful in judging a replace.

I'll throw another acronym out there: FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Shotty is trying to spread to the town by making a bunch of baseless accusations and ignoring cases against him. Shotty really needs more votes.

Right, right.... Baseless because they aren't something you can bandwagon on? I'm not trying to spread any fear or doubt. Zito's reasons for lynching me are a load of BS based on the fact I decided to observe and report rather than attack during day one. At least I contributed original ideas and independent opinions to cases that were presented instead of jumping on the coat tails of every case against someone right as I replaced in.

No no no. My vote is on you because you're the scummiest player in the game. Why are you the scummiest player in the game? Because:

1. Until I came along, you were just making contentless posts and trying to appear townie by asking for information.
2. Going after an easy target, a lurker, who can't/won't defend himself instead of someone who would actually answer. Again to try to earn townie points.
3. Failing to refute anything I've said. And I've said a lot.

1. My posts have been far more useful than anything your predecessor put in and all you've done is ride other people's arguments and reword them so they look pretty.
2. Trying to prevent this maybe? Getting blindsided with nothing to comment on.
3. Once again you gloss over anything that disagrees with you, and you must have a huge pile of gloss at this point, can you see the table underneath?

[Shotty to the Body]

Well, this was disappointing.

We then come to a rather bizarre pair of posts:

I'm not going to interject into the Gadget/Cyren conversation here since Cyren doesn't need my help, but I am going to say that the above solidifies Gadget as my #2.

All - keep in mind that we have a deadline a week from today, so we'll need to start moving to a consensus soon. At this point I'm fine with either a Shotty or Gadget lynch.

I dont think it was that concrete a result. Thats a bit of a stretch Zito.

No? Hmm. I'll explain then. Sorry Cyren, wasn't trying to interfere.

Cyren's basically saying "I'm scumhunting, please don't answer for him so he can wriggle away." ... Second point - I haven't seen Cyren push for a lynch yet. ... Cyren's just saying to pay attention to other conversations, even if you aren't involved in them. Your post is a blatant misrepresentation.

What we have here is Papa not only defending Cyren, but putting words in his mouth. That's quite scummy.

Okay first... Cyren is a she.

Second, have you actually read the thread? I didn't want to get involved in Cyren's hunt, but Phily asked me to explain how I came to my conclusion and that was the only way to do it. If you read Cyren's post later, she even says that my take on it was correct.

Papa further attacks Shotty in 220.

{reposts wall of text}

This post is deeply scummy.
1. He dismisses Shotty's arguments as OMGUS without examining their validity.
2. He attacks a strawman, claiming Shotty supported lynch all lurkers.
3. He attacks Shotty with rhetoric (e.g. huge cloud of smoke, FUD) rather than concrete points.
4. He refuses to engage Shotty's responses, then calls Shotty out for ignoring his points.

Again, first, have you read the thread? There's been another exchange between us since what you quoted.

1. I went point by point and refuted everything he said. Also, irony.
2. Shotty voted a lurker. I made a case about why this is bad. Attack the case if you want.
3.

I went point by point and refuted everything he said.

Clouds and FUD are a general comment on his strategy.
4. Pete and Repeat sat on a log. Pete fell off, who was left? 1, 3, and 4 are all the same, and so is my answer. I went point by point, refuted his remarks, and he has failed to defend.

I went point by point, ignored the things he said I didn't like, ignored all the points he made about me being scummy, wrote a giant pile of bull, and misinterpreted him whenever I could.

Fixed.

[Shotty to the Body]

Vote Zito

If I wait any longer he'll probably tell me I rode the opinion wave that I started.

[Papa Zito]

I listed three. And townie power-roles want to lurk a bit early on so they don't get nightkilled. See Mastin (Doc) in the game I linked earlier for an excellent example of what happens when power roles take the limelight.

And I've already discussed why going after lurkers early Day 1 is bad, so I see no need to rehash the rest of this.

So are you trying to tip us that your predecessor lurked because he's a PR? Seems like a stupid thing to do if you really are one since that would probably get you night killed. Of course, Mafia don't have to worry about that now do they?

Good God man, you

still

haven't addressed the points I made. I gave you reasons why a lynch lurker campaign early Day 1 is bad, and all you do is say I support lurkers. Over. and over. and over. and over.

Also, rolefishing is bad, mmkay?

{PZ PBPA on Shotty}

{Shotty PBPA on.... Shotty}

You added some more words. And? Where's all the helpful advice again? Which ones were the substantive posts we should all be glad you posted?

1. Yes, watch out for the bus tomorrow.

That's kinda creepy actually, cuz I take a bus to work every morning. >_>

And it's a really cheap, easy, and almost painless way to get in a free shot since you could've complained no matter which way I went without looking too scummy.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE.

There. It's in all caps so you don't miss it again.

[1]2. You still fail to realize the difference between a vote to lynch and a vote to get someone to post. Considering how much you pride yourself on logic this almost has to be intentional since I've been pointing out the difference for days now. [2]It's not exactly riding opinion when I've already posted my thoughts and everyone is free to examine them and comment. [3]Considering I've actually pointed out things that other people haven't, unlike a certain someone, I wouldn't talk to much about being a bad guy if I were you.

1. I know the difference. Cyren's already noted that you were campaigning for a lynch and you didn't refute that. Ho hum.
2. Actually, no. You didn't post anything worth talking about at all. The PBPA showed this. Others have commented on it.
3. I've already addressed this. The fact that I see the same scummy thing that someone else sees doesn't make it any less scummy. It just means you were being obvious.

1. Lol apparently some people seem to think I made some counterpoints since they've pointed them out and you just keep glossing them over.
2-4. Okay, lets look at the proof. Compare your opening opinions of myself and Gadget to the opening opinion's of Cyren on Gadget and Corp's case against me. Let's look back to the 5 points I talked about in the first post where I analyzed everyone. Right, the part where the reasons that aren't a load of crap are copycats of Corp's case worded differently. Once sure, I'll buy it, but making the same cases as two other people against two players that are the easiest targets?

1. I'll just keep refuting stuff, point by point, until they catch on I guess.
2-4. Again, already answered. I've added to your case since. Cyren's case on Gadget is good and I see no reason to interfere with her.

1. You misread, you say I thought you were fine until you targeted me. In reality, you've been targeting me since you replaced in so you have no standard to compare my actions now to my actions with you before you attacked me since there really weren't any.
2. All your material on this condemns me for getting lurkers to post, I've read it and supporting lurking is fail.
3. You actually ignored most of the post where I analyzed you and everyone else, didn't see any responses to any of the comments made there, just some vague OMGUS wave off.
4. You would think no pressure, but since you continually defend lurking and your predecessor's (few) actions it makes me think there still is some pressure you feel the need to fight against. Yes, the bus, remember and no you can't have it.
5. Maybe you use logic but you sure seem to ignore a lot of things.

1.

You

said you had a pro-town read on me. If attacking you makes me scummy, and I attacked you out of the gate, where did the pro-town read come from? Once again, you fail to address the point.
2. Round and round she goes...
3. I read that post and didn't feel the need to comment, since we were having this lovely conversation anyway, and the opinion of scum on other people isn't terribly important.
4. I'm telling you I felt no pressure from you. At all. Zero. I'm now getting pressure from Corp and qwints. You're making me tired with the lurker thing. I'm not going to explain it over and over again.
5. Sigh. Keep repeating it, maybe someone will bite.

Of course your happy to make that post, by the way WIFOM that first sentence out. Your predecessor posted FOUR FUCKING TIMES with NO CONTENT. How can we judge you on any of that, maybe that's why I tried to discourage his lurking? I'll do his PBPA since it won't take more than 5 seconds.

My predecessor flaked. Sorry, no points.

No no no. My vote is on you because you're the scummiest player in the game. Why are you the scummiest player in the game? Because:

1. Until I came along, you were just making contentless posts and trying to appear townie by asking for information.
2. Going after an easy target, a lurker, who can't/won't defend himself instead of someone who would actually answer. Again to try to earn townie points.
3. Failing to refute anything I've said. And I've said a lot.

1. My posts have been far more useful than anything your predecessor put in and all you've done is ride other people's arguments and reword them so they look pretty.
2. Trying to prevent this maybe? Getting blindsided with nothing to comment on.
3. Once again you gloss over anything that disagrees with you, and you must have a huge pile of gloss at this point, can you see the table underneath?

1. Sigh, again. I've questioned others. I've added to your case. This argument is boring.
2. What?
3. Yes yes, everything is gloss. There's no substance to anything I write.

This is really going nowhere. I think everything that needs to be said has been. I'll leave it up to the townies to decide. My vote's certainly not going to move.

[Papa Zito]

Vote Zito

If I wait any longer he'll probably tell me I rode the opinion wave that I started.

lol

[Papa Zito]

Oh, and happy birthday, Vel-Rahn Koon!

[The Corporation]

1. wat. Townies should always be able to defend themselves. Scum are the ones at a disadvantage here because they have to manufacture things to make mislynches happen. Townies should rarely (can't say never) lie.

1. Lieing isn't the issue with Shotty. Nor is manufacturing things. What exactly do you think he is "manufacturing"? His case against you? He does make a valid point that you have echoed a lot of my arguments against him, as well as adding a whole lot of other stuff (which I will address in point four). Jumping on my initial case and flogging it into the ground could be seen as scummy (making sure now to tie it all back to me), however I have enough faith in my initial read (another plug for post 167) too look beyond that and trust that you just have the same good read as me.

Oh the contrary, scum by their very nature must manufacture and lie in order to advance their cause. They know who the townies are, and must find a way to make the townies lynch each other. The only way to do this is to manufacture and lie. Yes, his case on me is manufactured. His case against my predecessor was as well.

Also, I came to my own conclusions when I posted. I'm not mirroring anybody. Your case is that Shotty hasn't bothered to post anything helpful. I see that too (as have others). He's also done two other things that I'm dinging him for.

P.S. I'm not flogging it into the ground. If he's defending then I have to respond or else it'll seem like I'm giving up/agreeing with him.

This might just be a difference of theory but to some extent are we all manufacturing arguments on Day 1? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I have drawn a conclusion too far or misinterpreted something (I was suss on Phily early for example).

You also said scum 'must find a way to make townies lynch each other'. I disagree that this is their primary focus. But even using that as your argument - what has Shotty said or done attempting to see townies lynch one another.

I come from a slightly difference ideology that scum on D1 are primarily concerned with staying beneath the radar. Thus my 167 post.

2. wat. Cyren and I have both posted massive quantities of content since we replaced. There should be plenty there for people to form opinions of us and build a case if need be.

2. There is some out there - half as much as those that participated before you came into the game. And 99% of your posts are either attacking him or agreeing with his suspicions in 215. The only thing he can contradicts is your attacks on him and a lot of that can be written off with 'you can't just count what our predecessor did' and 'well of course you would say that'. Not leaving much. I say that because I agree with most of Shotty's observations (sans the hardcore suspicion on you and his innocence).

Untrue. I've taken shots at Phily (admittedly mild), falko, Gadget and now you. I would be going after Gadget more but he's being hounded by Cyren so I don't need to. I've also addressed the whole predecessor bit like three times now, so I'm not going into that one again.

I think you've just noticed my walls of text and not my smaller posts. I think.

Dude, I'ved read it all. Again this just comes down to reading the game differently. But let me throw this one back in your court, read Shotty's post 215. To my reading the only

large

discrepancy in both your reads in the game is you think he is scum and he thinks you are scum? If that is the case (again I could be reading that wrong) where exactly is he supposed to attack you?

I have a read on Shotty being scum independent of this exchange so I'm trusting that ok?

3. wat. Nothing is stopping him from building a case on someone else. Also, Gadget already has one, why should he build one on Gadget?

3. Nothing. Again assuming he is innocent for a second, you and I can't see a significant case for them to answer now, so I don't really expect it of others. Especially one who seems to not have the strongest scumdar in the game. But again - I don't give too much creedence to this point because I'm leaning strongly to scum on him.

Bah. Nobody saw a case on Shotty until you did the homework and posted it. There's no reason a townie Shotty couldn't do the same on me or anyone else, unless you're saying that nobody else in the game has done the slightest scummy thing at all.

This is a fair point that I agree with. I was just putting myself in Shotty's position to try and understand his actions

if

he was town. Simply due dilegence if I am going to put my vote on someone D1.

4. WAT IN ALL CAPS. If you don't want to comment on our exchange fine (I guess) but to just ignore it completely is ludicrous. There's way too much there on both players to just wave a hand and dismiss it all.

4. Allow me to elaborate. For a start you are preaching to the converted. When I posted 167 I was 70% sure that my vote would stay on Shotty for the duration of this day. When he didn't reply adequately and practically agreed with the case you can bump it up to 80% - this is before you come in. Reading your discussion 30% of it seemed to be a nit picky discussion about lurking - which I give no creedence to. Another 25% was spent picking at the difference in definition between helpful behaviour and scum hunting behaviour - again I have little interest in this when it comes to voting. In the remainder there was a lot of repeating things ideas I had in 167, as well as a few other ideas.

You're a fan of Lynch All Lurkers then? This is curious to me because you haven't batted an eye at the activity level of any player in the game thus far. As far as nitpicking, well, it's Day 1.

No. When did I say this? You are both totally overreacting to each other on the issue.

Is it possible your predecessor lurked because he was scum? Yes.
Is there any way of me knowing this? No.
Is it possible your predecessor lurked as town? Yes.
Is there anyway of knowing that? No.

Therefore I don't give a shit either way! You both could be potentially correct and I have no way of knowing. So I just totally ignore that part of the argument. It is tired and old hat.

You have to get to grips to fact with the fact that your predecessor made it more difficult getting a read on you by not posting in the first half of the thread. Shotty needs to (and already has for the most part) get to grips with the fact that the predecessor's lurkage can't really play any role in a scum case against you - especially given the amount of content you have now posted.

That said I am still very much intent on voting for Shotty at this point! Just for reasons independent of yours.

Now Gadget please, hurry up and post your thoughts on where your vote is going.

[Cyren]

Gadget - I badger you most because I suspect you most and your answers have been less than sufficient. I don't see how that is scummy. Am I number 2 on your list?

Other than my being convinced you are scum, why do you find me scummy?

Corp -

Seriously? I can't see how Shotty has been forced into a situation where he can't defend himself. If it were simply semantics or slip-ups, maybe, but IMO I think he has been defending himself. I was leaning towards town until that god awful line up for tomorrow. Also, he doesn't have to "build a case" against me or zito to defend himself. Added point I think I've probed him a little. I have not "come straight out at him". I don't mind the comparisson between Zito and I since we have been playing strangely similar, but do NOT confuse me with him. I thought Shotty was doing fine, but I currently still need more evidence to persuade me either way.

Speaking of which

Shotty - (more probing to ensue)

1. What makes you think Zito and I are scum buddies? (At the very least I can use your response for future refrence)
2. What exactly is your case against Gadget? What things that I have said do you agree with/disagree? (speaking of which Corportaion you never answered that questoin earlier either) And what do you think may have been missed?
3. What do you find specifically scummy about me?
4. Do you still think Phily is an "albeit agressive townie"?
5. Do you feel your vote is at all OMGUS?
6. do you like chinese food? (lol)

Zito -

Mainly I want to know why you yourself try to refrain from the "Cyren-Gadget" case and even encourage others to do so? Its to my understanding the town is supposed to work together... Am I just being too hard on him or something?

Qwints -

What is a strawman? And again, I'ma she, not he.

Phily- too passionate for me to get a read on right now

He's backed off his aggressiveness after being called out on it. That's pro-town, but not necessarily a tell on his alignment.

He backed off his aggressiveness, but also stopped producing any real content unless asked, and even then it was sub-par. He hasn't really attacked anyone since he backed off of you either. Just restated his suspect list.

Which brings me to..

Phily -

You said you "defend those in the right and go down on those in the wrong" Do you not see anyone in the wrong anymore?

And your current posts have been a little... confusing.. from their lack of content. Can you elaborate why exactly you voted for shotty?

Shotty's post 251 -

We can't just "consider that struck." -.- But in the future I hope you realize the future scumpair talk is pointless on D1 with pretty much no info.


Something of my own opionion being discussed, I do think our predecessors don't have much to do with us since we did replace on D1 and we've posted plenty of content since replacement which now makes Zito and I scummy.

So hey, what is the vote count now?

Giskard and Falko -

I know you have your own thing going, but can we get your insight on the zito/shotty/me/gadget arguments too?

We only have a few days left here and someone needs to be three votes or a no lynch will occur... (half of five is 2.5 so I'm assuming its three)

At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch. In the case of a tie, the person who first received the required number of votes will be lynched. If this number is not met, a No Lynch will occur.

Unless someone wants a no lynch?

[The Corporation]

I'd like to thank God someone finally posted about this. Zito's been attacking me with the material from this entire day, most of which was pointed out earlier by others. Zito's predecessor posted a grand total of FOUR posts and only two that weren't "Oh sorry I haven't been on I'll post my thoughts in another 5 days lolz." Not exactly a lot to work with since he got lurk/flake through the day, the thing I was trying to prevent. Now since his replace activity is high, we have something to judge, but since I built the case Zito just throws it out as OMGUS because I'm reading too much into his attacks on me? His arguments are scummy as hell and I'm locked into a corner since I have almost nothing to work with from before. It's hilarious he posts against me for inaction/indecision considering his predecessor did NOTHING but FoS once.

Also I have to agree Corp it is sort of odd to ignore an entire exchange that spans pages and involves numerous walls of text. And I really don't understand how my analysis of you is some kind of loading gun, care to elaborate?

I think I reply to a majority of this in my last reply to Zito. But I will clarify that I didn't ignore it in so much as disregard it. If the sum of it is you two arguing about lurking (not interested in it as explained), specific guidelines as to constitutes what is helpful and not helpful to the town (I'm happy just to decide for myself so disregard that), Zito echoing points I have made prior (no need to take those on board again) and finally each of you calling the other one out for ignoring the argument - what exactly am I supposed to take on board?!?

The loaded gun thing comes from. You seem abnormally confident that I'm clean - given even if you were cop you haven't cleared me. If you are scum and you somehow survive lynching ... I could get killed in the night and then you could say "OMG I had such a good clean read on Corp too!, I can't possibly be scum". I wouldn't buy it for some others, and in the right circumstance they might. Again this was a minor point which nonetheless was more interesting to me then a lot of Zito's attack against you.

Lastly. Speaking of Zito. To me the best argument to be made for Zito being scum is also the best argument for him being town. He came into the game and read it exactly as the consensus did: Shotty & Gadget as the two primary targets. He then persued it diligently. Given the unfortunate timing of his replacement there is no real was of knowing wether he is diligent town or opportunistic scum in Day 1. It's a short term strategy because his intentions will be pretty obvious if he makes it to D2.

[GadgetArcrep]

Lunchtime here, will post... eventually...

just bear with me.

[The Corporation]

Corp -

Seriously? I can't see how Shotty has been forced into a situation where he can't defend himself. If it were simply semantics or slip-ups, maybe, but IMO I think he has been defending himself. I was leaning towards town until that god awful line up for tomorrow. Also, he doesn't have to "build a case" against me or zito to defend himself. Added point I think I've probed him a little. I have not "come straight out at him". I don't mind the comparisson between Zito and I since we have been playing strangely similar, but do NOT confuse me with him. I thought Shotty was doing fine, but I currently still need more evidence to persuade me either way.

It not so much able to defend himself, but his survival at this stage seems very much linked to getting another candidate up and running. And I empathise with his difficulty in getting Zito up as a nomination as he can validly write off any case brought against him as "I can't be responsible for my predecessor" "OMGUS!" and jumping on the back of points I made before he joined the game.

I will agree that Zito has been far more aggressive in perusing Shotty and it was unfair in lumping you together.

I will however point out post 235, sounded to me like you were ready to come out and vote Shotty to me. Did I read that wrong?

Corp, I find it odd you can't think of anything to say about Shotty's responses to both you and Zito. You were the first person to vote for him and point out your suspicions now he is at L-2 I believe. I'm refraining from switching my vote because I want Shotty to be able to respond first, but you seem to have started a bandwagon and aren't adding much to it now.

You really have nothing else to say about their posts or anyone else?

Also it seems like you were pretty keen to get me back in the discussion on Shotty. What was the motivation for that? I have shown in the thread that I post when I see something scum and attack it hard. Since I rejoined the discussion at your behest you have had no comment on Zito or I's comments. Strikes me as somewhat weird.

Unless someone wants a no lynch?

We lynch on pure statistics alone IMO.

Sorry for missing this, it was in the very gutter of page 9:

Corp - Suss on gadget? What is suss

Basically shadowing other peoples arguments and being a fairly aggressive bandwagoner. Not necessarily scum, but could well be. He agrees with a lot of my arguments which I like to think are fairly substantial and well thought out - but often when asked his own thoughts I often think 'all bone no meat' here. So IMO there seems to be an inconsistency in the posts he agrees with (substantial) and those he himself posts (moderately satisfying).

That is why I'm trying to get Gadget to lay his cards on the table pre-vote. I would like to see his opinions and thoughts without primarily drawing on others.

What do you think of those comments?

[PhilyEc]

[looks at page]

....

I hate you guys..

[PhilyEc]

Okay idea. Instead of beating eachother senselessly with walls of texts and getting lost in the repetitive nature of 'I must have the last word' lets bring forth our cases now.

Those who win arguements are going to be the obv town afterall and this seems to be turning into something more self motivated now.

Zito, your case on Shotty please.
Cyren, your case on Gadget please.
Corp, your case on either please.
Shotty, your case on Zito please.
Gadget, a case please.

This'll hammer things out for the entire town in my opinion,of course with new content all these cases must've developed somewhat.

[PhilyEc]

EBWOP: Those who win arguements areNT going to be obv town afterall. =-=

[The Corporation]

Corp, your case on either please.

See 167 for Shotty.
See the last part of 264 for Gadget.

[Papa Zito]

[1]This might just be a difference of theory but to some extent are we all manufacturing arguments on Day 1? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I have drawn a conclusion too far or misinterpreted something (I was suss on Phily early for example).

[2]You also said scum 'must find a way to make townies lynch each other'. I disagree that this is their primary focus. But even using that as your argument - what has Shotty said or done attempting to see townies lynch one another.

I come from a slightly difference ideology that scum on D1 are primarily concerned with staying beneath the radar. Thus my 167 post.

1. Disagree, but yes, we've devolved into a theory discussion.
2. I'd say there's more than one way to skin a cat. If you go by this logic you'll ignore an aggressive scum player on day 1. Again, theory.

Dude, I'ved read it all. Again this just comes down to reading the game differently. But let me throw this one back in your court, read Shotty's post 215. To my reading the only

large

discrepancy in both your reads in the game is you think he is scum and he thinks you are scum? If that is the case (again I could be reading that wrong) where exactly is he supposed to attack you?

I have a read on Shotty being scum independent of this exchange so I'm trusting that ok?

Re-read 215. Discrepancies:

1. He doesn't list anyone as probable scum. His worse is "medium". I'm assuming there's a "medium-high", a "high" and a "very high" given his other rankings. Although there's also a medium+, so who knows. This gives him lots of room to maneuver later if someone questions his list; I am much more clear in my opinions.
2. He has Cyren listed as one of the scummier players, when I have her as the most pro-town.
3. And yes, he and I are switched on our respective lists.

Regardless, there's no reason he can't use a different angle, like qwints has done. And none of this excuses him from making a case on someone else.

No. When did I say this? You are both totally overreacting to each other on the issue.

Is it possible your predecessor lurked because he was scum? Yes.
Is there any way of me knowing this? No.
Is it possible your predecessor lurked as town? Yes.
Is there anyway of knowing that? No.

Therefore I don't give a shit either way! You both could be potentially correct and I have no way of knowing. So I just totally ignore that part of the argument. It is tired and old hat.

It

is

tired. Especially since my predecessor

flaked

. Flaking and lurking are

not the same things

. Jeesh.

[Papa Zito]

Zito -

Mainly I want to know why you yourself try to refrain from the "Cyren-Gadget" case and even encourage others to do so? Its to my understanding the town is supposed to work together... Am I just being too hard on him or something?

Too hard on him? Not at all. Especially since he's dodging now and trying to lurk to deadline.

I agree, the town is supposed to work together. I think the town stands a far better chance if several people are investigated simultaneously vs. one or two at a time. At the moment, we have:

Zito vs. Shotty vs. Zito
Cyren vs. Gadget
qwints vs. Zito
Giskard vs. falko
Corp vs. several
(did I miss any?)

This is a sign of a healthy town. The vast majority of players are either hunting someone or are being hunted. That means lots of content is being generated. If the town tunnels on one or two players then you get a lot less bang for your buck.

[Papa Zito]

[looks at page]

....

I hate you guys..

Lulz. Somebody call Mastin, there's walls and he's not involved.

Zito, your case on Shotty please.

1. Until my hunt, he was just making contentless posts and trying to appear townie by asking for information. (yes, yes, Corp posted this too)
2. Going after an easy target, a lurker/flaker, who can't defend himself instead of someone who would actually answer. Again to try to earn townie points.
3. Failing to adequately defend himself against pretty much anything I've said.

This is pretty good for day 1.

Also, I'll toss this one back to you - You have a vote on Shotty, your case?

[Giskard]

@Giskard

...

The point about confussion is this. If you ask me, for example:,

who do you think that is the most scum?

(that's a syntaxis in a question, it's not about jeopardy you know).
And I say:

Probably, myself

And you ask me back...

You are serious??

And I say...

Yes, I am.

.

People can say that is a joke, clear as water, but people can say, that is confussion as well. That's you basis of your attemp of scumhunt against me?? please.

Elaborate deeper, maybe we could use that.[/i]

Okay, first of all here is a quote from post 45 which was made before you voted for qwints:

He says it like he had a reason even though he said it was random.

You're clearly misrepresenting me. My first vote choice switch was a joking response to falkomango. I made it clear (upon Phily_EC's) request that I was not being seroius. I stated that it

was

a real vote only after falkomango made a post saying implying he wasn't going to participate until after the random voting phase was over.

This post spells out exactly why quints voted the way he did. As I have said, I can understand how someone might have found his votes confusing. But even after the above quote you still felt that he was deliberately "causing confusion"? I don't buy it.

And secondly, your only response to my case against you is to post some a dialogue that barely applies to the least important aspect of what we are discussing? I am assuming that you read the entire post because you referenced the Jeopardy joke I made. And that was all you had to say in response? I don't think you could possibly dodge me anymore. First you completely ignore me and now you post a response that really isn't even a response.

[qwints]

@Cyren, a strawman is a logical fallacy where you attribute a weak position to your opponent so you have an easy target.
e.g.,
A: I oppose the invasion of Iraq.
B: You must not support our troops. You ought to support our troops because they are heroes.
or
A: I oppose abortion.
B: You must hate women. Misogyny is wrong.

Sorry about getting your gender wrong.

[Giskard]

I meant to say at the end of my last post that I was gathering my thoughts in response to Cyrens request.

Also @ Cyren, I looked over everything and it looks like Shotty currently has three votes on him so if the deadline were right now he would be lynched.