Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, considering you never gave a decent reason it was bogus day 1, your objections on day 1 were bogus, so reinstating your reasons remains bogus.

[Dragonfly13]

Votecount #13

Seven (1) - DeathSauce
DeathSauce (1) - DeathRowKitty

Not Voting (8) - Radical Hijinx, Thor665, Lastsurvivor, Panzerjager, Seven, evilsnail, Idiotking, Parama
With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.
Deadline: 2:00PM U.S. Central Time, Friday, February 19, 2010

[Lastsurvivor]

Hello all. Doing a reread right now. If I don't get my thoughts down tonight, I'll hopefully have them tomorrow. I don't exactly like Deathsauce's recent vote on Seven. I don't see how Seven exactly made a wide net of suspicions, I just saw it as commenting on what he missed. Not making a "strong stand" isn't exactly scummy either.

So, yeah, another post should come later/tonight/tomorrow hopefully.

[Lastsurvivor]

Mmm, rereads. Can't believe I actually finished that.

@Panzer's post a really really while back (sorry I didn't reply to this):

Your posts with your case on Dana are here and here.

All you say is "he does things to try to be townish. Here are some examples to try to make my case look bigger!" You also didn't even address the main point of my post. You went from giving two sentences about why you think he's scum to "I don't even want a claim." You acted like something heightened your reasons of why you think he's scum, but didn't exactly acknowledge it either.

----

I'm not liking Deathsauce much, at the moment. I know I said this before, but my reread found some more stuff.

387: I'd like to see an elaboration on why Seven's PbP analysis wasn't a real analysis. He didn't post whole posts of fluff about people, and he also directed questions at people. Also, "a vote on seven or dana would provide useful data." What made you choose dana out of those two options? Can you show us what data we have now that we voted dana?

405: What deathsauce needs to realize here is that he is his predecessor's role. The questions he then asks DRK seemed to be attempting to deflect suspicion off of himself.

And of course, I already commented on post 466.

So, Deathsauce and Panzer would have to be my top suspicions at the moment. Another backing of my reasons are there predecessors. DC (replaced by Deathsauce) seemed to fit the "mafia trying to fly under radar" junk. He posted, and posted content, and made posts with stuff in them, but he didn't bring anything new to the table.

Chamber (replaced by Panzer) literally brought nothing to the table. He just commented on metas, or agreed with stuff. It's kind of null, but my gut isn't giving me a good feeling about it. If I had to choose a third, it would be SP/RH. SP kind of began to look bad on my reread, mainly because of things that were already brought up, and RH did the whole flying under the radar thing again.

[DeathRowKitty]

I endorse the above product.

[DeathSauce]

Well, at least he has reasons.

Lasty, it isn't just failing to take a strong stand, it is the ambiguity. Scum know things the rest of us don't, but they don't want to advertize that by seeming too sure of those things. Therefore scum tend to throw a lot of maybes, and seems-tos, and other unnecessary modifiers in front of their statements.

Considering dana came up town, there is admittedly less data than I had hoped. Dana's strong defense of Seven was what I was referring to. If dana had been scum, Seven would be scummier.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DeathSauce
I didn't give reasons? Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to make me look scummy over nothing, you would have remembered that.

[Thor665]

Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to make me look scummy over nothing

Isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle...scummy?

You've on multiple occasions built up cases that were based around gut reads and either misreps or misinterpretations depending on how someone wants to read it. Though I do agree it's scummy coming from DeathSauce I'm surprised you find it scummy considering how you do the same.

How do you define the differences in your method vs. DeathSauce's?

[Idiotking]

I agree with Deathsauce in that Seven's wallpost is extremely wishy-washy. I also don't like how Seven essentially said of Thor that "welp, he looks townie to me and has all game, maybe that should be a scumtell?" That is not a logical conclusion to reach

at all

. If you have every indication that X is true, why would you then conclude that Y (the opposite) is true?


Also,

Vote DRK

I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.

[Seven]

That is not a logical conclusion to reach at all. If you have every indication that X is true, why would you then conclude that Y (the opposite) is true?

I agree it's not a logical conclusion, it isn't a conclusion at all. It was an open invitation for anyone (DRK especially) to find something interesting. My train of thought at the time was also along the lines of "is it possible to be TOO townie...", but yeah I didn't bother really exploring the idea further and even DRK has backed down from his stance on Thor at this point.

[Seven]

And btw what did you mean by this?

Reactionary play annoys me.

You've been pretty reactionary yourself by my definition...

[Idiotking]

If it's an open invitation then you're admitting you've got nothing to go on. If you think it's too townie, you'd better say so. If you didn't bother exploring the idea further, then you shouldn't have said anything to begin with. And why does your statement have any relevance to DRK's stance on Thor? You said something that was between you and Thor, not you and DRK.

I think you said it to make Thor look suspicious without giving any good reason for it. Presenting the invitation means you're accountable for it. And don't misconstrue my statement: Thor could be scum, I'm not saying that you're scummy for saying he could be. I'm saying you're scummy for indicating that you think this way without following through with it.

Also, your definition of reactionary is wrong. OMGUS is reactionary. Blasting dynamite through someone's paper-thin case against me isn't, if you're referring to dana. Other than that, I don't see how my actions could be considered reactionary, since I've been on the offensive for most of the game.

[Idiotking]

Oh, here's a thought. If it's an open invitation, are you asking other people to build the case up (or idea) for you? Why don't YOU do it, since it's your idea? Or are you hoping someone will take your idea, run with it, and then when it fails to work get blamed for it?

[DeathRowKitty]

Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to make me look scummy over nothing

Isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle...scummy?

You've on multiple occasions built up cases that were based around gut reads and either misreps or misinterpretations depending on how someone wants to read it. Though I do agree it's scummy coming from DeathSauce I'm surprised you find it scummy considering how you do the same.

How do you define the differences in your method vs. DeathSauce's?

There's a big difference. He's picking on things that aren't scummy and trying to make them look scummy. Which is bad. And OMGUS in this particular case. Which is very bad. And scummy.

I disagree that I've built cases off misrepresentations. Well, intentional ones at least. Can you show me where I've done that?

Yes, I have based votes off gut reads, but it's different from taking things that aren't scummy and attempting to make them look scummy. To the best of my memory, I've attempted to explain my gut reads at some point. Even unexplained though, gut reads don't incriminate a player based off nothing. If there's nothing there, other people will see it and the player with the gut read will look bad. If there's something there, other players will see that and there's probably a good reason they're seeing it too.

Also,

Vote DRK

I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.

Also, your definition of reactionary is wrong. OMGUS is reactionary. Blasting dynamite through someone's paper-thin case against me isn't, if you're referring to dana. Other than that, I don't see how my actions could be considered reactionary, since I've been on the offensive for most of the game.

I think you have it backwards. DeathSauce is the one being all OMGUSy, not me. Anyhow, explain how my play has been reactionary.

[Idiotking]

If you do little else besides defend against someone else's accusations, that's reactionary. You've done other stuff too, but by and large, most of your actions have been defensive, arguing against people who brought stuff up against you.

I point to the statement "DeathSauce is the one being all OMGUS, not me." You're basically pointing your finger at someone saying "he did it!" That sure as hell looks reactionary to me. I admit that I haven't read much into DeathSauce (on my to-do list), but when you say something like that, it comes off as reactionary, regardless of context.

Add into that yesterday's wishy-washy-ness, and you're still deserving of a vote.

[DeathRowKitty]

The amount I defend myself is directly proportional to the number of posts made attacking me. That number's been fairly high. Therefore, I've been defending myself.

I also argue that I have in fact been attacking others. Have you been reading my posts?

DeathSauce

is

OMGUSing. I made a case against him. He called me scummy for it with horrible reasons. I voted him again today and he cited his previously stated reasons to show why my vote was bad and I was scummy. This is OMGUS.

[Idiotking]

Whether or not DeathSauce is OMGUSing has no relevance

at all

to whether or not you're being reactionary. Even if he's OMGUSing like an idiotic scummy mcnoobface, it doesn't make sense for you to say you're not being reactionary

because

DeathSauce is being reactionary. The second phrase does not make up for the first phrase, and indeed has nothing to do with it at all.

The fact that you keep bringing it up when it has no relevance to my statements is why I'm calling you reactionary. See?

[DeathRowKitty]

No, I don't see it.

How is pointing out something scummy being reactionary? I could have sworn it was called "scumhunting."

[Idiotking]

Insisting upon mentioning it when it's not relevant is being reactionary. I'm not discussing DeathSauce. I'm discussing your reactions.

This insistence is why you're being reactionary.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm reacting to your ridiculous posts. That's the only way I'm being reactionary.

Allow me to describe the sequence of events:

1. You said I was being reactionary and defined OMGUS as reactionary.
2. I pointed out that DeathSauce OMGUSed.
3. You said I was being reactionary by pointing that out.
4. I asked how that made me reactionary, repeating the accusation in the process.
5. You said that the fact it was true has no relevance.

I don't get it. What should I have done in your expert opinion?

[Idiotking]

I'm reacting to your ridiculous posts. That's the only way I'm being reactionary.

Allow me to describe the sequence of events:

1. You said I was being reactionary and defined OMGUS as reactionary.

Note, I didn't describe OMGUS as the ONLY thing that is reactionary. It's just the best example.

2. I pointed out that DeathSauce OMGUSed.

When it wasn't the topic at hand. I didn't ask what DeathSauce was doing. His reactions aren't relevant. Yours are. Even if I completely accept what you're saying, at best all you're saying is that both you and DeathSauce are being reactionary,

which means you are still being reactionary

. If I want to deal with DeathSauce, I will do so after I reread his actions. I'm dealing with you now, and you've done

nothing

in this entire exchange that has made me doubt my belief that you're being reactionary.

3. You said I was being reactionary by pointing that out.

By pointing it out when it's a seperate issue and has nothing to do with what I said, yeah.

4. I asked how that made me reactionary, repeating the accusation in the process.
5. You said that the fact it was true has no relevance.

Yeah.

I don't get it. What should I have done in your expert opinion?

Tried showing why your actions aren't reactionary. All you did basically was say that DeathSauce is OMGUSing. I didn't ask about DeathSauce, I asked about you. Because you are arguing with DeathSauce and because I didn't ask you about Deathsauce and yet you still bring him up, I conclude that you are being reactionary.

Let's do a Person A, Person B argument, shall we?

Person A says Person B is being reactionary. Person B says Person C is being reactionary, therefore Person B is not being reactionary. In truth, Person C's reactionary nature does nothing to disprove Person A's statement that Person B is being reactionary.

[DeathRowKitty]

Gotta love those Person A, Person B scenarios.

1. You said I was being reactionary and defined OMGUS as reactionary.

Note, I didn't describe OMGUS as the ONLY thing that is reactionary. It's just the best example.

I know. I worded my post accordingly. While we're on the topic though, define reactionary because I'm not getting it still. I'm not quite sure what I'm being accused of.

[Idiotking]

I take the statement "reactionary" as both meaning not acting unless acted upon as well as reacting negatively to suspicion (not applicable if the reasoning for such suspicion is faulty). It is also what leads to false dilemmas. If one person thinks another person is scummy and the other person thinks that the first person is being scummy and they're both at each other's throats, it probably means that one or both parties are being reactionary. This is the case with you and DeathSauce, and your efforts to bring DeathSauce's OMGUS-ness into every conversation is a symptom of your reactionary behavior.

[Idiotking]

In all honesty, it's a difficult concept to put into words. It's the sort of concept that's much easier to tell when it is and isn't present than it is to define concretely. But that's the best way I can think of to define it.

[Thor665]

I disagree that I've built cases off misrepresentations. Well, intentional ones at least. Can you show me where I've done that?

Interesting question - are you admitting you've done it unintentionally and want me to point out intentional ones? I'll point out the 'case' you had on me for about a day or so.
Here's where you did it
I called you out here

Idiotking (if I recall correctly) also called you out once or twice subsequent to that and some other players have ridden the coattails a bit but I think only he and I pointed out specifics.

The initial read of it was quite scummy to me; You suggest an odd fervor from me as regards the Seven lynch, paint me with 'the scumtell that cannot be named' and call me on something that I'd already been called on and admitted to and acted like it was a big deal and that you'd noticed it first.

You later quickly apologize, admit that you don't think I'm scummy at all because you misread (misrepped depending on personal opinion) some things, and point the finger at SP/RH/whoever who is also my wagon of choice which struck me as potentially a bit of buddying/appeasement.