Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[Idiotking]

You were being suspected for your unvote when you saw an RVS bandwagon start. Looking into the bandwagon could have been an excuse for why you unvoted and would seemingly be a pro-town thing to do. The fact that you later said there was nothing to analyze just makes it more likely that you were just using that as an excuse. All of this has been brought up already. I'm not even sure why you had to ask.

I've already discussed this in detail. What are your responses to my responses?

A few selected quotes from your last post:

For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

I still don't see why that was

obviously

a random vote.

This doesn't show anything being blown out of purportion, it's merely a repeated issue that hasn't been resolved yet.

If he's blaming you for suspecting him, then why didn't he vote you as soon as you started attacking him? He gave specific posts as to why he's voting you and I think he would have been completely justified in voting you even earlier.

He has also stated that he didn't want his vote to appear OMGUS. Meaning, he couldn't OMGUS vote outright. He had to find something to tag it to, some outlet for the vote, and as such, chose my argument concerning his defensiveness.

Which is quite possibly the worst thing he could have done. I had basically predicted he would OMGUS because he suspected me who suspected him (and was willing to press the issue to its fullest extent). Unsurprisingly, we now have an OMGUS vote for that very reason. Had he voted earlier, it would have been laughable.

You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.

This is not the case. I use my 'infamous Person A Person B analogies' to show my reasoning behind my explaination. No, the situation presented wasn't immediately relevant. However, it did show why this game is opinion-based, which was the point. I also love how you're defending RC more than RC is defending himself.

I would definitely notice. L-4 doesn't mean much. It means you should definitely be defending yourself, but that's it. L-3 (in my mind) is starting to get into more dangerous territory. Remember that L-2 is where claims are often forced. L-3 means that you're one bad move or one stupid sentence away from possibly being put in claim territory.

I wasn't addressing this question to you.

Complete misrepresentation of what RC said. RC doesn't suspect you for finding him suspicious. He suspects you (the way I'm reading his posts) because you're trying to blow this completely out of proportion.

Oh my! Here we have a problem!

You say I am misrepresenting what RC said? I could say the same thing about your statements concerning MY posts. Misrepresentation? Are you the one who I'm misrepresenting? You yourself say it's the way you're reading his posts! How do you know I'm not reading them a different way?

There is so much hypocrisy in this statement, it's incredible.

But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.

MISREPRESENTATION!

Basically what I'm asking you here is this: GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, do you believe RC to be town or not? You HAVE to have reads one way or the other. There can be no middle ground. If there is, you're not searching hard enough. I was exaggerating when I said angelic or satanic, I attempting humor. But the fact remains that everyone has reads one way or the other. Do you or do you not, with the information available, believe RC to be town? This is the very root of the question in its simplest form. I want an answer.

The key point here: you said you're waiting for him to change your opinion, yet you refuse to have your opinion changed!

When did I say I refuse to have my opinion changed?
I said he hasn't done anything to change my opinion.

Now I gotta look up the definition of strawman.

You're not looking for him to confirm that he's pro-town and as far as I can see, you never have been. You came into this argument with the assumption that he's scum and refuse to relinquish that assumption, no matter how many times your points get refuted.

I'm actually waiting for my points to be refuted. I came into this argument expecting RC to react with honesty. Instead, the town is treated to a lie.

Your argument (that you basically stole from others) initially was that RC random voted out of the RVS. After all this arguing, that's still all you have and I really doubt it's even right.

I borrowed, but I expanded on. Haven't you been listening? It's like talking to a brick wall. I said RC tacked a lie on to it. I'm not a die-hard proponent of Lynch All Liars, but when the lie is purely anti-town with 0 redeeming qualities, I think that speaks for itself.

You're willing to argue any little thing he says as if you're hoping something will trip him up and get him lynched.

Um... ok. I'd scream misrepresentation again, but I doubt it'd have any affect on you. Your defense of RC is admirable, but it's again solidifying my opinion that you are in fact buddying him to a degree I haven't seen since my newbie game.

On a side note, what's your experience level?

I don't see how that game you posted has any relevance to your situation. First of all, you weren't even there for the first few pages. Second of all,

no one was lynched in the first few pages

. When the lynch finally occurred, it was 16 or 17 pages in and only because of a deadling. What does that game have to do with not wanting to put a 3rd vote on someone on page 3?

It wasn't about the lynch. It was about the posts and votes tied to them.

READ

the thread. READ IT. It shows how dangerous votes can be, and how naive one is by not caring how high lynches go (read darkdude).

[Paradoxombie]

Quote wars like that are annoying

Sorry about my last post, but there was no other way to make that post.

My statement wasn't supposed to be a complaint, it's advice for whoever would like it. I make long posts too. But when it continues for several posts back and forth, then it makes the arguments inaccessible to people not already participating, because people start making points about points about responses, and we get so caught up in clarifying ourselves that soon no one can see the forest through the trees. We end up arguing about the argument.

I just think it's neither the best way to make a case, nor scumhunt. I make points because they're useful, not just because they're there to be made.

[Idiotking]

But... but arguing about the argument is fun....

[DeathRowKitty]

I've already discussed this in detail. What are your responses to my responses?

The fact that I called it an "excuse" should imply I don't believe them.

This doesn't show anything being blown out of purportion, it's merely a repeated issue that hasn't been resolved yet.

If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's not

obviously

a random vote.

I had basically predicted he would OMGUS because he suspected me who suspected him

You suspect him, therefore it's an OMGUS? I'll use one of your "Person A, Person B" situations. Let's say Person A votes Person B. Person A then acts scummy. Is Person B not allowed to vote Person A?

I use my 'infamous Person A Person B analogies' to show my reasoning behind my explaination. No, the situation presented wasn't immediately relevant. However, it did show why this game is opinion-based, which was the point. I also love how you're defending RC more than RC is defending himself.

It wasn't immediately relevant, yet you posted it anyway? Why not make up a situation to go along with your situation. I also love how you claim I'm defending RC to avoid adequately addressing this point, when I'm actually just dispelling irrelevant points.

wasn't addressing this question to you.

I was saying why that question was unreasonable. If you're willing to use that question as part of your argument, you shouldn't be afraid of anyone's answers.

Basically what I'm asking you here is this: GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, do you believe RC to be town or not? You HAVE to have reads one way or the other. There can be no middle ground.

Yes, there can be a middle ground. There can be a whole spectrum of reads I can have on a player. The fact that every player is one side or the other doesn't mean I have to see a player as definitively on any particular side. For example, everyone has a role at the start of the game, yet I have a neutral read on everyone. It's very possible that read stays for some people.

If I had to pick, I would say RC is town. It wouldn't make sense for both of you to be scum and at this point I think you are.

When did I say I refuse to have my opinion changed?

Obviously, you wouldn't say that, but that's what your entire argument is saying to me. You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.

I borrowed, but I expanded on. Haven't you been listening? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Just to show you I did read the game, I'll steal a response from it: It's the opposite of talking to a brick wall-a brick wall doesn't respond.

What bad came of the votes at the beginning of the game? Anything?

Um... ok. I'd scream misrepresentation again, but I doubt it'd have any affect on you. Your defense of RC is admirable, but it's again solidifying my opinion that you are in fact buddying him to a degree I haven't seen since my newbie game.

On a side note, what's your experience level?

There's a BIG difference between defending someone and showing that someone's argument makes no sense. I've been showing that your argument makes no sense.

I assume you're asking for my experience level under the assumption that I'm blatantly buddying? This is my second game. Yes, I'm inexperienced. No, I'm not stupid.

[DeathRowKitty]

But... but arguing about the argument is fun....

It's also anti-town. By your logic, that makes it scummy.

[alexhans]

Sorry for the lack of participation lately, I had an unexpected week of work added on at the last minute.

Anyway,

Mod:

I will be going on vacation monday until the 23rd, which is a pretty long period of time. I don't want to hold the game up, since I will not have any internet access, so it might be a wise idea to replace me. I'm still willing to play of course, but I don't want to hold the game up.

Not sure what to do about that. But otherwise, I will try to catch up and post my thoughts later today.

*I'm afraid I'll have to replace you ASAP so I can give the replacement time to catch up. 2 weeks is too much to be missing. It adds up to almost 5 prods. Activity so far has been 6 RL days for 10 pages. That means aprox 2 pages per day wich is 28 pages for you to catch up when you come back. Too much. Thanks for letting me know.

Tl,Dr: Looking for a replacement for dank

[Idiotking]

The fact that I called it an "excuse" should imply I don't believe them.

Ok. Respond to them anyway.

If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's not

obviously

a random vote.

Logical fallacy. It is obviously a random vote to those who don't believe RC's excuse. It hasn't been resolved because he hasn't proven to me that it isn't. The burden of proof rests upon the accused.

You suspect him, therefore it's an OMGUS? I'll use one of your "Person A, Person B" situations. Let's say Person A votes Person B. Person A then acts scummy. Is Person B not allowed to vote Person A?

If Person B is voting for Person A because Person A is voting for Person B, then no. This also is not the case, nor does it prove a point, as the situations I present do.

It wasn't immediately relevant, yet you posted it anyway? Why not make up a situation to go along with your situation. I also love how you claim I'm defending RC to avoid adequately addressing this point, when I'm actually just dispelling irrelevant points.

You're not dispelling anything, you're raising new ones for me. I posted it not because it's relevant to the development of the game. I posted it because it explained how this is an opinion-based game. This was not an 'irrelevant point' as you call it. This was a response to the statement he posed to me, and as such, is adequate.

I was saying why that question was unreasonable. If you're willing to use that question as part of your argument, you shouldn't be afraid of anyone's answers.

I wasn't using the question as part of the argument. I wanted his opinion. Is it wrong to Q&A while also advancing a case?

Yes, there can be a middle ground. There can be a whole spectrum of reads I can have on a player. The fact that every player is one side or the other doesn't mean I have to see a player as definitively on any particular side. For example, everyone has a role at the start of the game, yet I have a neutral read on everyone. It's very possible that read stays for some people.

At the start of the game nobody's posted anything, there's no information. This is Page 10, there is information. I said with all information available. If you don't have a read by now, you're not doing your job right.

If I had to pick, I would say RC is town. It wouldn't make sense for both of you to be scum and at this point I think you are.

Fair enough. Why?

Obviously, you wouldn't say that, but that's what your entire argument is saying to me.

That's your read of things. It doesn't make it fact, just your opinion. Also, what indicates this to you, specifically?

You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.

I have given plenty of opportunities to check my meta. I'm perfectly willing to give more. This is how I have always done things, and how I will always do things. I am not attempting to refute everything he says, I'm attempting to ADDRESS everything he says. Why? Because that's how I do things. In this sense, it would also make sense if I'm town, because I want to pressure him with REAL pressure, not the fabrication that pressure votes are.

Just to show you I did read the game, I'll steal a response from it: It's the opposite of talking to a brick wall-a brick wall doesn't respond.

This just shows that even though you read it, you missed the whole point of me showing it to you.

What bad came of the votes at the beginning of the game? Anything?

"The logic is simple. Scum want a lynch. They'll push wagons. A wagon has formed with 2 votes. Scum sometimes push the wagon with a third. I consider a third vote on someone page 1 telling."
Also true on the third page.

"Considering it's the first page, I'm not sure I like a random wagon going even as high as L-4 myself."
Also true on the third page.

"I'm no big fan of random voting myself, and not liking random voting is no reason for three votes this early on."

I could keep going. It's a lesson learned from watching darkdude nearly get his fool self lynched for saying he's ok with wagons going as high as L-1 that early, and the reaction the town had to that statement.

This is an issue with my playstyle. As such, I have responded with an example that should be more than adequate to describe my feelings on the situation. If you refuse to get the point, then there's nothing more that I can do.

There's a BIG difference between defending someone and showing that someone's argument makes no sense. I've been showing that your argument makes no sense.

Showing that someone's argument makes no sense is part of defending someone. Poking holes in the accuser's arguments is a very simple, universal way to defend yourself or another player. Do you honestly think it isn't? More, you haven't been showing that my arguments make no sense. You have done NOTHING to do that. If anything you've given me ammunition.

I assume you're asking for my experience level under the assumption that I'm blatantly buddying? This is my second game. Yes, I'm inexperienced. No, I'm not stupid.

Uh huh.

I wanted to know your experience level for a multitude of reasons.

1st: It annoys me when inexperienced people say things like "poking holes in the accuser's arguments isn't defending" when it absolutely is.

2nd: Yeah, the buddying.

3rd: A lot of your arguments concerning my personal actions, such as your post 216, were completely obliterated by my post 217. Those that weren't had already been repeatedly addressed before. You have yet to respond to the addresses, and your resistance in doing so is suspicious.

4th: You do a great deal of misrepresentation in your posts.

5th: General hypocrisy. It's ok for you to read my posts how you see them (misrepresent), but it's not OK for me to read RC's posts how I see them (misrepresent)? I'm not saying I'm misrepresenting, I'm arguing from your perspective. You have a double standard going here.

6th: A hunch. A very good, very accurate hunch apparently.



Remember, in games of mafia, no matter how smart you are, if you're inexperienced, you're also stupid.


Oh, and 7th: As in your post 229, you can't take a joke and try to make something more out of it than there is to begin with.

[DeathRowKitty]

I wanted to know your experience level for a multitude of reasons.

1st: It annoys me when inexperienced people say things like "poking holes in the accuser's arguments isn't defending" when it absolutely is.

2nd: Yeah, the buddying.

3rd: A lot of your arguments concerning my personal actions, such as your post 216, were completely obliterated by my post 217. Those that weren't had already been repeatedly addressed before. You have yet to respond to the addresses, and your resistance in doing so is suspicious.

4th: You do a great deal of misrepresentation in your posts.

5th: General hypocrisy. It's ok for you to read my posts how you see them (misrepresent), but it's not OK for me to read RC's posts how I see them (misrepresent)? I'm not saying I'm misrepresenting, I'm arguing from your perspective. You have a double standard going here.

6th: A hunch. A very good, very accurate hunch apparently.



Remember, in games of mafia, no matter how smart you are, if you're inexperienced, you're also stupid.


Oh, and 7th: As in your post 229, you can't take a joke and try to make something more out of it than there is to begin with.

Allow me to address those points in order.
1. That came after you asked. That wasn't one of your reasons and even besides, there's no reason for someone to have to defend himself against meaningless accusations.
2. I'm inexperienced, therefore

obviously

I'd be stupid enough to buddy to this extent. Your turn. Read my other game (I was scum) and then try and argue I would buddy this noticeably.
3. I don't see how you obliterated them. At all.
4. Hypocrisy? If I misrepresent your posts, it's because they weren't well written and I'm getting you to say what you wanted properly.
5. I would argue the same of you.
6. Where exactly did this hunch come from? Care to point out any posts?
7. I used that as an opportunity to make a point. You didn't take what Paradoxombie said seriously at all. You dodged the issue instead of defending it. It was a great opportunity to point out how different "anti-town" and "scummy" are. Hopefully you didn't think I took your joke seriously? Don't try to take a joke and make something more out of it. That's a sign of inexperience.

Not having played mafia doesn't mean I'm stupid when it comes to mafia. Inversely, being experienced with mafia doesn't mean you play well.


As for the rest of your post, I have to agree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars aren't going to get us anywhere. Looking through massive posts is starting to get annoying and no one's going to follow them. If you have a few parts of that post that you believe contain particularly pressing issues, make a new post pointing them out to me.

[DeathRowKitty]

If anyone's still following this, please give an opinion.

[Idiotking]

1. Yeah, it was after I asked, but it certainly added to it. And in my opinion, my accusations are not meaningless. If it is wrong for someone to defend themselves from 'meaningless accusations', is it therefore right that someone else do it for them?

2. Will do. However, whether you're town or you're scum, you're still buddying. And buddying is a scummy thing to do. You even seem to admit to buddying.

3. Um... you suddenly stopped bringing them up, or you refuse to respond to my responses.

4. Yeah... that makes perfect sense. /sarcasm
Do you deny that my reads of RC could hypothetically be just that, reads, not misrepresentations as you've so adamantly claimed?

5. That's not a response.

6. Just a general feel of your style. There's not anything specific to point out for this one; it's just that your actions, in combination, point to you being a newfie. I haven't decided whether this makes you any scummier or not. Your actions somewhat resemble newb scum that I've seen, in the buddying and double-standards. Then again, they also resemble things I did (and sometimes still do) as newb townie, such as the buddying and double-standards.

7. You seem to be trying to say two things now: 1. that it was a joke, 2. that it was proving a point. You can't do both. You lose points just for that. As for the point you say it proves, paradoxombie didn't require a response; my earlier response to his earlier statement basically explained our thoughts on the issue. His more recent post changed nothing. As such, I joked. And as such, the 'point' you 'proved' never existed in the first place.




I disagree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars allow those involved to address the issues on many points. If they slip, they slip. If they clarify, they clarify. This is how I scumhunt, and I will NOT be changing that merely because you dislike it. I am not going to separate any of my 'particularly pressing issues' from the post just for your convenience. I think they are all parts of one major pressing issue, and as such, should be addressed with reasonable responses.


However, I'm also tired. I'd like to hear the town's views on this little war we've got going before we do anything else.

[hiphop]

Trying too, but I believe idk is criticizing every comment against him. He blowing things out of proportion. I don't think Shrine even wants to.

[Idiotking]

From what I can see Shrine hasn't posted since the 5th.

Mod, may we have prods on Shrine, jason and Zach?

*Yes, I just arrived home. Prodding...

[alexhans]

Shrinehme has been prodded (he was the only one that hadn't posted for more than 72 hs).

[jasonT1981]

Had some major Computer issues, Power outage as I was shutting down has set me back a day. NTLDR files got corrupted and could not repair them. only fully got computer going now, will be catching up tomorrow.. its 1.40am here

Sorry

[Paradoxombie]

I liked IK's original line of questioning, but I feel his attempts to add pressure were misguided because he failed to convince anyone, including RC, that RC looked scummy.

At this point his arguments against RC seem like more a defense of his own views than pressuring.

[Paradoxombie]

hat indicates this to you, specifically?

You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.

I have given plenty of opportunities to check my meta. I'm perfectly willing to give more. This is how I have always done things, and how I will always do things. I am not attempting to refute everything he says, I'm attempting to ADDRESS everything he says. Why? Because that's how I do things. In this sense, it would also make sense if I'm town, because I want to pressure him with REAL pressure, not the fabrication that pressure votes are.

Well I have to ask you: Does this feel so unreal?

unvote, vote: IdiotKing

[alexhans]

Everyone give a warming welcome to don_johnson!!!

he will be replacing dank..

[DTMaster]

Welcome don! I'm at work atm so I can't do my usual round of posts today. I'll see if I can do them on Sunday the latest.

[Idiotking]

It's real, Paradoxombie, but that doesn't mean I care about it.

I'm actually rather fine with it. If I died my arguments would receive validation that is impossible while I'm still alive. They would be coming from a pure, absolute townie. Absolute proof of intent and motivation. As such, when/if my arguments were reviewed in that light, I believe it would contribute to the town in the coming day.

I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.

My arguments are all readily available for the whole world to see.

I am now ready to go to Valhalla if the town wishes it.

[Idiotking]

God, I've been wanting to use that line for a long time.

[Paradoxombie]

I think you're wrong about RC whether you're town or scum. Even if he is scum you have the wrong reasons to suspect him and when it's a mislynch him and DRK would look cleaner than the 5 people on the wagon after them.

Also, martyrdom is bittersweet.

[Idiotking]

True, I could be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I am indeed wrong, then RC, as townie, should be able to defend himself adequately. It would be the same situation if I was killed later and had a case built against someone.

I suspect him because he lied and said it wasn't a random vote when it absolutely was. I think he OMGUS voted me, which is also suspicious. If you also factor in DRK's obsessive defense and buddying, well then, you have a right tight little scumteam, don't you?

I am also interested in the timing. There was a point where DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy. A few posts later, RC votes for me. Then, before I respond, before having gained

any

new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum. It's on Page 9, near the beginning. That was the first real indication I got that DRK was buddying.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about at least one of them.


Also, martydom is manly.

[hiphop]

Probably. To me being anti-town and being scum mean the same thing. If you hurt the town, you deserve to be suspected. If you hurt the town and then lie about it, you deserve to be lynched.

What you did with the quotewar is absolutely anti-town. DRK might as well as post the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. If you wanted to say a point say it and be done with it. So if anti-town and scum are the same thing than:

vote:idiotking

[Idiotking]

I don't even need to build a case for why I think hiphop is scum. He'll end up doing it himself. He basically already has.

Come on, let's do this.

[Idiotking]

Also, way to go for opportunism, hiphop! Yay!