Mini 942: Gonzo Mafia - Game Over!

[VP Baltar]

Our prison system from coast to coast is bulging at the seams, and hundreds more are being crammed in every day--more and more of them saddled with the

mandatory Sentences

and

No Parole

Provisions that came in with the first Reagan Administration, which began only ten years ago, but it seems like twenty or thirty.

Indeed. But that is another very long story and we will save it for later....So let's get back to the library and my new buddy, the unfortunate Prisoner that I seized and captured by accident at four o'clock in the morning when I caught him wandering aimlessly through the hallways of a massive public building with his eyes bulged out and his spine like rubber and probably his nuts on fire, too, because he had nothing to say for himself and no excuse for anything.

---

Vote Count 1-5

:

xRECKONERx ~ L-4 (hohum, Debonair Danny DiPietro, ekiM)

flinter ~ L-4 (Percy, Zachrulez, ortolan)
ekiM ~ L-5 (Locke Lamora, Vi)
hohum ~ L-6 (Sotty7)
Sotty7 ~ L-6 (xRECKONERx)
kyle99 ~ L-6 (flinter)

Not Voting: kyle99

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch. Deadline is March 31 at roughly 3 p.m. (GMT -4).

[Vi]

Regarding post restrictions:

I'm not convinced it's a post restriction.

I think people who are jumping on Vi and demanding that she explain herself seem to be both (1) opportunistic and (2) paranoid.

I smell a scoop coming on...
First with the bolded. You posted this after Vi 107, which you were kind enough to quote in your most recent post:

This is not a post restriction

This is a strange inconsistency. Didn't you see this the first time?

Also, the reason I asked the question in the first place is because (1) opportunism is what you would expect from scum, but (2) paranoia (honest paranoia at least) is what you would expect from Town.

These aren't the only two things that have bothered me for a while now.
"New Age Cultist Tracked; Follows Trail Of Slime Throughout City", end quote.

As for kyle, his (1) weak agreement with xRx's vote, (2) weak attack of xRx's bandwagon and (3) no other substantive contributions is noted. FoS: kyle99.

FoS is scummy on policy; you of all people should know why since you were in the game where I was sigged for saying so.
What's interesting is that these kyle suspicions come from the person you're voting right now (and haven't mentioned previously). Why not vote?

and

demanding

that she

explain herself

As hohum pointed out, this never happened.

Thank you! I should also say hi to all the people I've played with before, because you are Good People (But Maybe Scum).

This is out of place. Not so much for flinter, but definitely for you - you're not this nice.

*unfair reference to Mafia 87 goes here *

Journalistic integrity demands that I not cast a new vote until I've heard from the person I'm currently voting for, but I think we can make this one exception.

Unvote: ekiM
Vote: Percy

(L-6)

---

Ekim is actually trying to answer and ask questions.

He's answering your theory questions, but that's about it...

How much experience do you have playing with kyle99?

---

No offense,

but that's some pretty weak reasoning.

Why no offense?

[hohum]

@hohum

:

I don't remember demanding an answer from Vi. I remember asking a simple question and your reaction to that is far more telling than her non-answer. Strawman much?

Well, that's certainly how I read this:

It's a fair question and if he is under a post restriction

we have the right to know about it.

You're purposefully taking things out of context now. What I said here was a response to you complaining about the question. The only reason that this conversation is taking place is because of you, not Vi.

Unvote, Vote Percy

Even if this isn't true, but especially if it is, I prefer to keep the focus on reads, reasons and opinions than trying to prise information out of the setup. An early focus on setup in theme games is at the best anti-town, imo.

Setup-related information can be useful to the town especially in the context of post restrictions. The fact that Vi is posting like she's posting alters my read on her, thus the question.

Rambling on about how we should be focused on reads instead of game mechanics is just fucking stupid, because any information is always helpful to the town (remember, informed minority vs uninformed majority).

[Sotty7]

Sotty: I'm taking a particular interest in Zach's early vote-hopping because we literally just finished another game with each other, as you might know (Mini 918 for those who don't). He replaced into that as scum and I remember him putting his vote about very little. He also wasn't particularly active (although part of that was completely out of his control). As for whether I find it scummy, not particularly. What Vi called his 'activity police' act after only 24 hours I thought was unjustified, but I can see why town-Zach would be looking at me for lurking early on when in his experience I've been active as town and lurky as scum. What I found a little odd is that he said his random vote was completely arbitrary when he was obviously interested in pressuring me early on in the game. In short, getting a mild town read off Zach early on, I get the impression he's genuinely interested in finding scum.

So let me get this straight. So you pushed and questioned Zach because his behavior (vote-hopping, lots of posting) was the exact opposite of your scum experience with him? So what was the point to the questions? If you are getting a town read off him shouldn't you be looking else where? The way you questioned him made it look like you were trying to make him look scummy but you didn't commit and now you are backing a away from it when other players have called him likely town.

Unvote, Vote: Locke

Not liking Vi's vote on ekiM. I'm not following the logic here, seems to be actively avoiding hohum.

Much as I wouldn't mind a vote on hohum, right now I'm looking at someone else. Again, multiple suspects, one vote. Hold me accountable to the hohum suspicion when I'm done exploring.
Until then, what is

your

opinion on ekiM?

Fair enough I suppose. My opinion of ekiM so far is a weak town read, I like the tone of his posts. I haven't seen any red flags. This is why I questioned your vote.

I don't have any definite reasons for why Zack is scum, and I'm not even convinced of it myself yet. Swinging around your vote, especially in the beginning, isn't terribly scummy, I just don't have any other leads.

Both you and flinter are guilty of the “oh I don't know”'s. If you don't have any leads, go and dig some up. What is your opinion on the post restriction talk that is going on between Percy/Ort/Hohum?

Same question to you flinter. I can only take so much standing around with your hands in your pockets doing nothing.

Edit: I see you vote Kyle flinter using meta as your case. Links to said games? On the surface your case looks weak.

The Percy case has some bite. I have seen him FOS as town so that point isn't much of one, but I am guessing that part is more policy on top of everything else brought up. I didn't really think if Vi had a post restriction during her first few posts until it was asked by hohum. Probably because of my unfamiliarity with the theme. But to say discussing a post restriction gives the scum info is a stretch to me. I probably would have questioned it if I had noticed.

Hohum's jump on to Percy is surprising. Hohum, are you happy with Vi's play now?

[xRECKONERx]

Vi what made you start putting L-X in front of your votes again?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

So I'm trying to investigate, but there is nothing scummy that stands out for me yet. It would also help if I got to know some of the players better.

if you are scum, and someone makes a point against you that is quite ridiculous, what do you do:

A calmly explain why it is ridiculous.
B call that person a moron, etc.
C something else (please explain what you would do)

Mike, do you remember what populartajo did in the game I modded during D1? Why he put together a convenient little quiz so that he could better understand the playstyles of everyone in the game. And hey, he was scum using that quiz as a way to look busy and avoid actual scumhunting as well as to better frame his arguments. Oh hey and flinter doesn't have any reads here so she puts together a handy little quiz that looks busy, avoids actual scumhunting and could help her frame arguments better later if we weren't all about to lynch her.

Unvote; Vote: flinter

[flinter]

is everything I'm going to do now seen as "trying to look active"?

Further, I'm not populartajo.

@the people saying I should search for points against people: if I do that, I fear I go the reckoner-way: trying very hard to find something, and as a result making cases on town just as easily as on scum.

But, lets have your word in this: would you prefer I did that? I think I could make a nice post that way, and maybe it helps, but I wouldn't be confident in it myself.

[flinter]

VI: would you mind if I didn't answer that question?

I considered asking if it was a post restriction a good idea. If it was done by scum, faking it, then this would force him to stick with it (while he could get caught if he failed). I think a postrestriction would normally most given to town, so asking if that was it, would semi confirm him.

Percy's action of attacking Hohum for it is mostly induced by "roleclaim is bad" idea's, which are not relevant here (as a postrestriction is already obvious, and scum knows). His trying to go against hohum, in stead of not thinking about it, or buddying with hohum makes Percy more likely town (though I think he is wrong)

[kyle99]

Alright, I looked at it again, and Flinter's reasoning on me is enough for me to

vote: Flinter

Your reasoning is because of the fact that I usually just follow the town, and never do anything that stands out, and because I'm standing out more this game, I'm scum. That is honestly terrible reasoning, and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

is everything I'm going to do now seen as "trying to look active"?

Further, I'm not populartajo.

If you're not scumhunting, but you're posting then I see no reason not to assume that your behavior is designed to avoid lurking and to avoid having to take a stance; these behaviors are inauthentic and/or scum-beneficial and thus are more likely to come from scum than town.

Congratulations, your second argument essentially is to basically eliminate the concept of a scumtell. "Just because other people regularly do this as scum doesn't mean I do it as scum" is extremely unconvincing.

[ekiM]

I've been away this weekend.

Answers:

ekiM, you highlight recks vote on me, any reason why? What's your impression of it?

Asking why he was voting for you. Weak.

For right now ekiM still bothers me enough that I don't want to move my vote.
---Question of the Day: Who does ekiM particularly suspect?--- (I see xRx; the rest of his posts are Spreading the Fear about me and flinter)

I'm going to do a player-by-player in a little bit.

I don't know what you mean by "spreading the fear". What I said in the first part of 101 was to highlight the inconsistency in the way xRx has been thinking about meta. I don't know what you meant about flinter at all.

Mike, do you remember what populartajo did in the game I modded during D1? Why he put together a convenient little quiz so that he could better understand the playstyles of everyone in the game. And hey, he was scum using that quiz as a way to look busy and avoid actual scumhunting as well as to better frame his arguments. Oh hey and flinter doesn't have any reads here so she puts together a handy little quiz that looks busy, avoids actual scumhunting and could help her frame arguments better later if we weren't all about to lynch her.

I remember. I also saw him do it as town a couple of times. I think those quizzes aren't very helpful, but not sold on it being a scum tell.

It's frustrating to have non-commital players, but I'm not (yet) seeing a scum-signal in the newplayer-noise coming from flinter.

[ekiM]

Questions:

I'm taking a particular interest in Zach's early vote-hopping because we literally just finished another game with each other, as you might know (Mini 918 for those who don't). He replaced into that as scum and I remember him putting his vote about very little. He also wasn't particularly active (although part of that was completely out of his control). As for whether I find it scummy, not particularly. What Vi called his 'activity police' act after only 24 hours I thought was unjustified, but I can see why town-Zach would be looking at me for lurking early on when in his experience I've been active as town and lurky as scum. What I found a little odd is that he said his random vote was completely arbitrary when he was obviously interested in pressuring me early on in the game. In short, getting a mild town read off Zach early on, I get the impression he's genuinely interested in finding scum.

So your early contributions to this game were questioning someone you had a town read from? "Lot of vote-hopping early on here, Zach. Is this normal for you?" reads like it's casting aspersions.

I don't want to put xRx at L-1 yet, but I understand that early bandwagons are designed to pile on the pressure, and xRx has reacted poorly. His "Unvote whoops well are you going to kill me because if not let's forget it ever happened" is another example of that.

Why didn't you want to do that?

My opinion on xReck is fairly town. I've never played with him as scum, but I've played with him many times as town and his current playstyle fits his town meta well.

If you've not seen someone play as both town and as scum how can you possibly draw meta conclusions?

I'm gonna unvote my RV, and FoS: Zack. His vote seems to be going every which way, but I don't think it warrants a vote yet.

Bad. That's the most significant thing you see after 5 pages, and you don't think it's worth a vote? More aggression please.

Why do you think moving your vote around in the early game would ever be worth a vote?

I've played with xReck before, and he always plays like this, which is why I'm not sure he's scum. I will admit some of his playing so far this game is quite scummy though. I can't remember seeing xReck wagoned like this so early either.

So is he "fairly town" or is he "quite scummy"? Hmm.

I don't have any definite reasons for why Zack is scum, and I'm not even convinced of it myself yet. Swinging around your vote, especially in the beginning, isn't terribly scummy, I just don't have any other leads.

So you don't have any leads. How do you fix that? Not by playing totally reactively, which is what you're doing right now.

Vi what made you start putting L-X in front of your votes again?

This is the most important question you could think to ask, after two days not posting?

[ekiM]

Thoughts:

Baddies

kyle99

- Entirely reactive playstyle. Seems to think xRx is "fairly town" and some of his playing is "quite scummy". Does not compute. No firm stance after five pages, zero attempt at scumhunting.

Locke

- His first bunch of posts all directed at someone he now says he had a town read on? No real votes or suspicions.

xRx

- Very reactive. Inconsistent thinking about meta (see isos 3, 6, 7, 9, 10). Hated the "lynch me or let's move on".

Goodies

ortolan

- mostly gut. Reads as genuine. Would like more posting.

Percy

- Again what he's saying feels honest.

sotty7

- Gut...

Zach

- And again. Yeah I guess I can't explain these reads yet.

No ideaies

Vi

- Pro-town playstyle, but I doubt I can read scum-Vi at this stage of the game.

flinter

- Far too timid but I can't tell if this is just the way she plays.

DDD

- He's posted less than I'd expect from him so far, but I don't have much of a problem with anything he's posted.Hope he gets more involved soon.

hohum

- Don't think I've played with this guy before. He seems to know his own mind. Not seen him do anything especially egregious or town-looking.

---

Unovte; vote kyle99

.

I'd like to hear a lot more from you. You can start by explaining what you actually think about xRx.

[hohum]

Hohum's jump on to Percy is surprising. Hohum, are you happy with Vi's play now?

No, because she's making it difficult to read her, but I'm content to keep her alive for the time being so that we can lynch scum.

[flinter]

Congratulations, your second argument essentially is to basically eliminate the concept of a scumtell. "Just because other people regularly do this as scum doesn't mean I do it as scum" is extremely unconvincing.

the concept of general scumtell is great for arguing, but isn't relevant in scumhunting. There each person is different. For some, selfvoting is a scumtell. For some it is not. You named

one

particular case where someone did something as scum, but it doesn't follow that everyone doing that is scum.

[flinter]

reread, using small tells as a start of scumhunting:

Mod:

"16) If you have been lynched, you are dead. You are not allowed to post in the thread any more until the game is over. This includes ‘Bah!’ posts. Violation of this rule may result in repercussions against your faction."

Does this mean after enough votes have been reached, or after you've announced the lynch?

He reads the rules: he is eager, and he is in a state of mind where he is paying attention to the game. Town.

Vote: ekiM

He was very pro-town looking scum last time I played with him. Early pressure might sort that out.

already making people doubt ekiM. I dislike this.

FoS Locke

ekiM has no problem with reasoning and logic, and that could indeed make him a good scum player. Because that looks good. He isn't uncatchable though, and you simply have to understand that ekiM will argue well. However, he will have other scumtells.

I don't get the early Hohum case.

And random voting someone for personal reasons isn't anti-town?

Or is this more because I random voted in a manner that's DIFFERENT than everyone else?

I dislike how he makes sure that people know he is different. Different is usually viewed as towny, and that makes this post most a roundabout way of saying: "I'm towny, really!"

FoS zach

Zach his posts on page three are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Sotty's deflection is noted:

Anyway...

Unvote: Vote: Sotty7

One random vote, one question toward me, (That feels like it's buddying up to Vi.) and no scum hunting. Her play feels off to me.

Eh it's the start of the game, I was finding my feet. Questing is how I do that.

Right now I don't see your RVS vote as scummy as Vi seems to find it. I was wondering what your point was about "you're clutching at straws" but your right she could be voting Hohum. But I see Vi just being Vi, she's like a dog with a bone when you're in her sights. I don't find it scummy.

What do you think of flinter Zach?

- edited -

flinter, why no vote yet?

Vi: are you under some sort of post restriction?

Good question. Townpoints.

@ekiM: I've seen Vi play as both, and I think she tends to be a bit more cautious/reserved when scum. She's kinda just letting it fly here without any thought of "Oh shit, will this get me flak/get my lynched?" Basically, when I've seen Vi-scum, she flies under the radar, something Vi is not doing here.

Do you think she's aware of her scum meta? Could she be playing against it?

ekiM

, was this a serious question, or were you sarcastic?

I named kyle already.

So me not bandwagoning and defending a baseless bandwagon is scummy? I'm simply saying that xReck's current playstyle fits his meta quite well, not that I'm completely assured of his towness. Your post basically reads, "Kyle is taking a stand, something I've never seen him do, so I think he's scum." No offense, but that's some pretty weak reasoning.

Lets call it buddying, so everybody understands what I'm saying.

kyle got mislynched on day one in roccisi winter as town doc (along with a whole bunch of other policy lynches), mainly for lurking and being noncommittal if memory serves. I don't see the difference to how he is playing here. flinter's case is basically "kyle usually plays like a sheep and because he's not doing so here he is likely to be scum". Sure it's uncharitable but I also can't shake the feeling flinter is just coming up with a convoluted excuse to vote someone who she thinks is an easy target (and conveniently avoid more populous/viable bandwagons).

Unvote
Vote: flinter

You didn't read my case well enough, I think. Noncommittal happens. Lack of scumhunting too. But defending (buddying to) other players? It is not his style.




And I think kyle is the most likely scum.

[Locke Lamora]

Sotty: I'm taking a particular interest in Zach's early vote-hopping because we literally just finished another game with each other, as you might know (Mini 918 for those who don't). He replaced into that as scum and I remember him putting his vote about very little. He also wasn't particularly active (although part of that was completely out of his control). As for whether I find it scummy, not particularly. What Vi called his 'activity police' act after only 24 hours I thought was unjustified, but I can see why town-Zach would be looking at me for lurking early on when in his experience I've been active as town and lurky as scum. What I found a little odd is that he said his random vote was completely arbitrary when he was obviously interested in pressuring me early on in the game. In short, getting a mild town read off Zach early on, I get the impression he's genuinely interested in finding scum.

So let me get this straight. So you pushed and questioned Zach because his behavior (vote-hopping, lots of posting) was the exact opposite of your scum experience with him? So what was the point to the questions? If you are getting a town read off him shouldn't you be looking else where? The way you questioned him made it look like you were trying to make him look scummy but you didn't commit and now you are backing a away from it when other players have called him likely town.

Unvote, Vote: Locke

You think Zach playing the exact opposite of the game I just played with him is good reason to look elsewhere? I think a deliberate effort to play differently is more likely to be scum-motivated than town-motivated. Zach's scum flip at the end of 918 came at almost exactly the same time as the start of this game and any attempt to play differently would quite clearly be affected by that. I questioned him because I wanted to hear his motivations; they sounded genuine rather than contrived so I got a town read. As far as I can see, you misrep me here on two fronts: first of all, you say that I was questioning Zach even though I had a town read on him, a read which I developed in response to his answers; and secondly you say I was questioning him to try and make him look scummy when what I was actually trying to do is work out whether his motivations were scummy.

Unvote;Vote: Sotty

ekiM's willingness to agree with Sotty's conclusions also noted. You can assume that I'm trying to cast aspersions all you want, but what I actually asked was simply whether Zach normally put his vote about a lot at the start of a game. I didn't say 'Zach's vote hopping is scummy'.

flinter: your assumptions about ekiM are based on flawed criteria. Do you think scum are reluctant, never read the rules or pay attention to the game?

[Sotty7]

Alright, I looked at it again, and Flinter's reasoning on me is enough for me to

vote: Flinter

Your reasoning is because of the fact that I usually just follow the town, and never do anything that stands out, and because I'm standing out more this game, I'm scum. That is honestly terrible reasoning, and makes no sense whatsoever.

If the reason is so terrible why wait so long to vote?

He reads the rules: he is eager, and he is in a state of mind where he is paying attention to the game. Town.

So scum never read the rules? Gotcha.

Sotty's deflection is noted

How is this deflection? I answered Zach's questions and then questioned him about you, a player I thought he could have voted for using the same reason he voted me. I was fishing for a link between the two of you. He responded by voting you but hasn't actually put any other real pressure on you. Not sure I like that.

flinter I'm still waiting on this meta links of yours.

[Sotty7]

Locke, you didn't make any commitment about Zach's play other to question it in a vague manner. You gave no insight to it before he answered and to me that looks like you are trying to have it both ways. By all means question someone, but it looked like you were setting him up for a vote because you weren't asking questions of any other players.

I think you smelt an easy wagon that has since fallen apart.

[Locke Lamora]

An easy wagon? Was Zach being wagoned at the start of the game and I missed it? I don't know Zach's play all that well and I certainly don't know whether he likes to put his vote about at the start of games. From my perspective, I'd just lynched him as scum and here he was playing completely differently from what I'd seen in that previous game. That was my primary focus at the start of the game because naturally that was fresh in my mind and the first thing I picked up on when reading through. If my failure to acknowledge other players in the first two or three pages is scummy to you, there's not a lot I can say about that.

[flinter]

sotty, it was the one Vi already used. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0 I thought you would already have read Vi's post. The other game is ongoing.

flinter: your assumptions about ekiM are based on flawed criteria. Do you think scum are reluctant, never read the rules or pay attention to the game?

Scum, per definition, doesn't investigate. ekiM did. That is a minor town tell. He had the right mindset.

Locke (and sotty, and others, if they want to be in this group), I think we disagree about how someone should find scum. You are looking for general scumtells: (active) lurking, bad logic, connections between two players where you don't know either allignement etcetera. But scum know these tells too, and are avoiding them. Town can make a mistake. All this makes that mislynches are quite common (at least, in the games I read)

I think this is ineffective. I believe that you find scum by looking at someone's motivations. "Why did he do that?", taking in consideration how he or she is as a person. I don't expect big cases from kyle (though I would be positively surprised if he made one), for example.

I am actually quite disappointed in you, Locke. You don't understand it, and then you say it is flawed. Mafia is a game where no one playstyle is best, everyone has its way of finding scum.

[Locke Lamora]

You're disappointed in me? Sorry, have we met? I didn't know you had any expectations. Also, if you'd been reading my exchange with Sotty, you'd see that I had Zach's motivations strongly in mind with my early line of questioning.

Are you still referring to ekiM asking about the rules when you say he investigated? Last time I checked, scum still had to play by the rules too. They are also capable of investigating and often need to because they don't have all the information either. In any case, perhaps you can tell me why ekiM must have had pro-town motives for asking for clarification about that particular rule?

[Zachrulez]

And random voting someone for personal reasons isn't anti-town?

Or is this more because I random voted in a manner that's DIFFERENT than everyone else?

I dislike how he makes sure that people know he is different. Different is usually viewed as towny, and that makes this post most a roundabout way of saying: "I'm towny, really!"

FoS zach

Weaksauce.

Zach his posts on page three are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Active lurking is scummy. Besides, the reason I voted you was because you weren't scumhunting. The efforts you've been putting forth are just really weak at this point. I don't really feel like they are genuine and are more forced suspicions in response to the fact that people find your lack of scum hunting suspicious.

[flinter]

Are you still referring to ekiM asking about the rules when you say he investigated? Last time I checked, scum still had to play by the rules too.

They are also capable of investigating

and often need to because they don't have all the information either. In any case, perhaps you can tell me why ekiM must have had pro-town motives for asking for clarification about that particular rule?

Town has to investigate
Scum has to hide, and survive.

nothing says ekiM

must

be town. He is just more likely town, because he clearly shows he is here to investigate.

What makes you disagree with this?

You keep saying scum could do it too. What makes this that scum does it just as often as town?

[flinter]

And random voting someone for personal reasons isn't anti-town?

Or is this more because I random voted in a manner that's DIFFERENT than everyone else?

I dislike how he makes sure that people know he is different. Different is usually viewed as towny, and that makes this post most a roundabout way of saying: "I'm towny, really!"

FoS zach

Weaksauce.

I was right? Although it was weak, I was right?

Zach his posts on

page three

are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Active lurking is scummy. Besides, the reason I voted you was because you weren't scumhunting. The efforts you've been putting forth are just really weak at this point. I don't really feel like they are genuine and are more forced suspicions in response to the fact that people find your lack of scum hunting suspicious.

I have bolded the two key words: page three. Oh, and they are. I already said that. But seemingly, they did make sense, as you are not even trying to argue, you are only trying to discredit me.

how did we call that: ad hominem?