havingfitz wrote:This sort of response is below you. But as your point was invalid, I guess it’s the best you could do.
Actually, you were begging the question. As the burden of production is on you, I'm satisfied leaving it there. I'm surprised
you're
satisfied, though.
You are dense.
Now do the trick where you deny you are using argumentum ad hominem!
Voting a player and providing multiple reasons for finding the player suspicious, above and beyond points which were initially unclear, is not a policy lynch.
He was playing like crap and his play deserved a lynch; I know, man!
HF ISOs 54, 58, 69 have already explained this.
54:
havingfitz wrote:I gave plenty of reason for my suspicions towards Cojin
A mere statement that you already gave reasons, and no explanation of the supposed reasons.
58:
havingfitz wrote:The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons
No explanation there either.
69:
havingfitz wrote:How is it? I thought Cojin’s play was scummy.
Assertion that his play was scummy without any explanation of what was scummy about it.
You start out saying you already explained yourself, then constantly point back to that bald assertion; did you hope people would not go all the way back along the chain of self-reference and notice that there wasn't actually anything there?
You claimed I conveniently jumped off Lawls to get on a doc wagon. That is a lie. There was no doc wagon, or claimed doc wagon at the time.
Cojin was the doctor. Did you read the morning scene?
Scum fakeclaim. Cojin wasn't even in a position to need a fakeclaim iirc...L-2?
Well if he wasn't in a position to need to do it...then, somehow, it follows he must have been doing it?
Logicfail.
At that point the benefit to scumCojin fakeclaiming far outweighed the benefit to townCojin claiming.
You're not Cojin, though, so why would you judge your actions from his point of view? The stench of WIFOM is wafting from this argument already.
There is no way to prove a Doc claim (other than in death) so scum do it.
If there is no way to prove a doc claim, then it's not an ironclad claim...so scum will do it? You're arguing two contradictory things here. You want to emphasize how unreliable the claim is, but you want the claim to seem like an insurmountable barrier to being lynched.
How would fakeclaiming doc scum be uncovered?
"I got this guilty result on this guy who claimed doc, what's up with that?"
One example.
You infer it was manifestly bad to not believe the doc claim but I disagree for the points I just brought up.
No, you are failing at reading comprehension again. I said nothing about believing the claim; I said it was the town-optimal thing to do not to lynch Cojin under the circumstances.
And Nacho's persistence on the Cojin wagon after the claim followed by his very opportunistic switch...without any mention of the doc claim as a reason... is by far more scummy.
You think we should lynch Nacho and then you rather than you and then Nacho? OK, I'm open to that, seeing as how
he's my second suspect
.
What reasoning would scumHF have to continue pushing the Cojin wagon when Lawls had momentum at various points of the game and with a doc claim....that is an option for a PR-NK.
Pure WIFOM. Nothing but WIFOM.
You make a lot of assumptions in this comment and yes....they are all inaccurate.
It's speculative. Deal with it.
And you again make a bald assertion that my comments were inaccurate when the very thing at issue is the purity of your motivations. That doesn't work in mafia.
You are scum’s best friend (or scum).
Bleating about how what I am doing is helping scum is not refuting my case.
And your either/or example conveniently leaves out the option where I am town and thought I was voting fakeclaiming scum.
My speculation that you are scum leaves out a situation where you are not scum? Yeah, that's how hypos work.
If it wasn’t answered above ask it again.
The one thing replying here has reminded me of is your complete lie about my Lawls reasoning, which I pointed out and you completely ignored. That was sort of a big deal in your wallreplies, and you seem to have dropped it. Sup?
It wasn’t absurd. The situations where not lynching a townie is scummy are far outweighed by them not being scummy.
Awesome; if I am doing a general commentary on all mafia games, I will include that tidbit. But, hey, right now, can we talk about this specific instance of a mafia game?
But some of them.
No, none of them are scummy merely for having voted a townie.
And town getting it wrong (soon to be a trend).
Hello, fellow medium-sized creature!
Ummm...3 townies on the Lawls wagon? Sounds good to me.
No fewer than 3 townies != exactly 3 townies
havingfitz wrote:If anyone whose primary point against me revolves around my maintaining my suspicions towards Cojin after he made his Doc claim...answer me this: how was Cojin’s claim supposed to do town or him any good...if he was town?
He apparently thought we would not have psychotic doc-murderers in this game. I also did not think a person's first reaction would be to lynch the claimed doc, so I guess Cojin and I both learned a lesson.
He was one of the top suspects D1, he made a PR claim when it wasn’t even necessary (L-2), and once he claimed Doc...if there was a RB, he would have signalled a cops existence to the scum as well.
He was one of the top suspects because of your pathetic anti-case on him.
If he hadn't claimed, but had been lynched, the scum would be just as alert. What you are saying makes no sense.
His claim did no good and made no sense.
It got us you, so it did some good.
I can see a lot of benefit to him claiming doc as scum (ie making it to D2 and simply saying he protected one of the townies scum decided not to kill....or by drawing out other PRs through counterclaims).
If it was such a terrible claim as town, then it was just as bad for him as scum, because all the doubts you are casting on him now would be just as valid (not valid at all in my opinion, but this is your hypo!).
A one-for-one trade is insanely good for town. It's stunning that you think this was the danger
to the town
of a scum fakeclaim.
Several people talked about how lynching Cojin on D1 would prevent the town from a protect (which odds were 88+% against).
88 < 100
An 88% chance he would get his protect wrong to begin with is a good excuse to fall back on for fakeDoc.
"Wellp, I didn't successfully protect, but the odds were against me anyway, right?" -not dangerous to us
And what would town have done if Cojin had lived through N1? Lynched him because there was no way he would have been spared?
I don't think everyone shares your hatred of docs, man.
This would support the scenario I hypothesized where there was no guarantee scum would even kill him to earn another mislynch (since odds are he would screw up their NK per the odds shown above).
All of which assumes we autolynch Cojin day 2.
My continued interest in the Cojin lynch was not as scummy as some are making it out to be.
Then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest. But I'm not an alien!
havingfitz wrote:I'm merely point them out to show the people who thought the Doc would be of use that the Doc's value was limited (before a claim) and virtually nil after a claim.
That is not what "nil" means.
This post wasn't necesaarily directed at you since you are untrainable and obtuse.
ad hom BS, I'm through with you
Tell us who your buddy is and then go get lynched. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.