Fine, I'll break 279 down sentence by sentence for you, since you don't seem to get that at no point do I ask anyone else to read a case.
First sentence - I ask if there is a short summary. Not asking anyone to read a case, just asking where it can be found.me, post 279 wrote:OK is there a summary of the case against PD somewhere? Because I'm not seeing anything hugely scummy from that iso. It could be because there isn't a lot there, but he doesn't seem particularly scummy from that.
Second sentence - I report that I didn't see anything that made me think "PD is really scummy" when I read his posts in isolation. Clearly not asking anyone to do anything here.
Third sentence - I suggest that it may be because he hasn't contributed or posted much, and reiterate that nothing jumps out as very scummy from my iso reread. Again, clearly no instructions to other players.
Now please tell me which of those three sentences you think contains a secret subliminal message instructing other players to read the PD case.
Not a backwards way of saying it at all. It's basic logic. If I say that something is not yellow, that does not mean I am saying it is red. Similarly if I say someone is not hugely scummy, that does not mean I am saying he is Town. My read on players is not black-and-white, it's a range, a spectrum.
I was not eager to stop the game. I did not want the game to be abandoned. I thought that PD had outed his scumbuddy, so I thought that standard modding practice would be to abandon the game, as happened the last time someone did this in a game of mine. As I have said, I would rather lose a game than abandon it, every time. My win-loss record is testament to this. I've hardly won any Mafia games, but I've never sought to ruin them to avoid it going on my record.
1) Agreed.
2) So you claim. It's pointless to say you predicted it, because for all we know you went back and edited it in to your "chronological" post. It's fine for you, but it's not admissible evidence for anyone else in the game.
3) It wasn't
that
quick a turnaround. Look at the timestamps - my "turnaround" post came some 20 hours after asking for the summary. Don't you think that's enough time to reread a case and change your mind about it?4) I didn't message the mod saying "abandon the game". I said "I think PD has ruined the game, you should check it out". I didn't give the mod any instructions of how to handle it in my PM, I was merely alerting him to the situation.
5) Fair enough. Dropped.
6) Fair enough.
7) As far as I can remember, your original point was that scum-me was trying to force the game to be abandoned to avoid a loss on record. If that's what you mean, then yes. My anger combined with my clear record-keeping of all losses completely negates this.
boberz, look at how MS has presented the case. That's what I meant when I asked you to present it more clearly.
Through the impersonal medium of the internet this reads as if I'm having a dig at you. I'm not, I'm just trying to help here. Sorry if it seems like I'm being rude about this, it's not my intention. Tone doesn't convey well through text.
-----------
MS:
This is a good point. I'd forgotten about this. Needs answering.MS wrote:Why are you calling flareon scum, when almost all of your posts show suspicion of almightybob, and you later vote him?
I understand that people use "Town" as shorthand for pro-Town. I do it myself. I have absolutely no problem with any player referring to another player as Town in this way. My problem arises when Gayle makes it seem like he's referring to a different player when he's actually referring to himself.MS wrote:1. You overreacted to Gayle's "medix is town" comment: I understand why you believed that Gayle softclaimed vanilla townie. What you should realize, though, is that a lot of players use town, or even townie, as synonymous with "pro-town". I personally believe that Gayle's comment was a joke which he could have made as a powerrole or scum too. This is also how Gayle explained it. You probably should have dropped the topic earlier. However, I don't think you as scum would gain an advantage from that behaviour, so it's not a scumtell for me.
But anyway, I think you're right, this should have been dropped earlier. I think it was a softclaim, some people don't. Let's agree to disagree on this point, because we're just going in circles.
Hm. Reading through it again, I can see how it could be interpreted as bussing. In hindsight I should have said specifically what I agreed with about Gayle's summary case. As I said in 302, there's only so much I can do with points already raised, and I didn't see much value in reiterating what Gayle had written. That was probably a mistake, as it now looks like I didn't really agree with the case.MS wrote:2. Your behaviour towards Patriots was suspicious and likely bussing: Before I reread for post #349, you were my top suspect, for exactly this. Originally, you were questioning my attack on Patriots. Then in post #269, you suddenly mentioned that good points had been raised, without actually explaining what they were. You seemed to go back to not understanding the wagon in #279, to go to voting him in #283. This behaviour felt strange and not genuine. It could indeed have easily been setting up a bus. The explanations you have given recently are acceptable to me though.
All I can really offer against this is that bussing usually takes place when the partner's lynch is inevitable. Between my posts 279 and 283, nothing much happened to indicate that PD's lynch would be inevitable. He was only on 2 votes, and would not have been lynched at deadline. The fact that we stood in a NL position was the deciding factor in my decision to vote for him. If anything I would say that my vote
made
his lynch inevitable by putting him into a deadline lynch position.I don't want the game to be abandoned. I don't want any game I'm in to be abandoned.MS wrote:3. You wanted the game to be abandoned to prevent a loss: I have to agree with boberz that you were very quick to state that the game would be abandoned. Allthough this is likely a result of previous experiences, I can't rule out the possibility that you actually wanted the game to be abandoned because with the roleblocker lynched, you felt it had become very difficult for you to win.
While it will indeed be hard for the remaining scum to win with their roleblocker lynched, I can provide a counterexample to this accusation. In Newbie 841 I was lynched on D2 as the Mafia Roleblocker after a cop investigated my slot on N1. Obviously this meant there was definitely a doc, which meant it would be VERY difficult for my partner to win the game.
If I were the kind of player who sabotaged games or forced them to be abandoned rather than lose, I would have done so in Newbie 841. After the cop claimed against me, I could have named my scumbuddy and forced the game to be abandoned. It's almost the exact same situation as this game. But I'm not like that, and I've never tried to ruin any game I've ever been in.
I want to win, but I don't care if I lose. I play Mafia for fun.
Yes, I voted for Kyiv straight away. I was still not entirely convinced at that point that PD was just stirring us up. However, if a wagon had piled up quickly, I would not have been happy about that. Obviously this is hypothetical now, I have no way of proving that I really would have reacted like that. Such is life.MS wrote:4. You wanted to get a quick mislynch on Kyiv on day 2: You definately were quick to vote Kyiv at the beginning of day 2, and you definately were quick to unvote when I argued against it. You completely dropped the topic after that, even though you showed reluctance when you unvoted. This can indeed be the result of attempting to get an "easy" mislynch, then dropping it when it turned out that there were others strongly opposed to that lynch. However, I think the explanation that you felt Kyiv was obviously scum, then other players convinced you otherwise, is more believable.
