Open 238: Trendy and Subversive Game Over

[podium123456]

ugh. i hate rvs... i think more games should start at night. now we have to play a week of tickleass until someone takes something the wrong way and makes a mountain out of a molehill... and then a couple more knuckleheads pile on.

im tempted to say screw it and put mallow at L-1... lol but im sure several people would have a stroke going 'ZOMG he is so impatient, he must be scum!' bah.

VOTE: gonnano

-- for starting a game a week before he takes vacation

wake me up when something happens

*falls asleep*

[podium123456]

well yeah, if u get killed N1 it sucks... but thats just part of the game. the benefit is that the rest of the players have a more meaningful start... as you have deaths and reports and what not to go on right out of the gate. i mean, we're gonna twiddle our thumbs here for a week or two until something petty gets blown up anyway... if u got killed N1 on a night start, u could be in another game by then.

anyway. what are you talking about with limits and breaking the game? there's no limit to how many times you can vote.

[podium123456]

ah, ok.... gotcha.

[podium123456]

dang there's only 7 people in this game. and everyone has made their tickleass RVS posts.

WAT DO

[podium123456]

eh i dont know... i just wanted to say something.

what approach am i taking, and why would it mean a pointless game?

[podium123456]

So umm... you quoted me from another game. A little odd. You stalkin' me? heh. Was there a specific reason you used that quote of mine?

Also, how can you say i am making no attempt to advance the game? I did my little random vote thing... what the hell do you want me to do... start crying until everybody votes my random vote? lol. There's nothing going on. If anything, my last post was a little prompt to get people talking... like we are... which is advancing the game.

By the way, were you serious with your FOS of teejay?

[podium123456]

Missed this when I originally went through to clear that situation up.

[podium123456]

... what the hell do you want me to do... start crying until everybody votes my random vote?

That would be great. Go for it.

*cries*

sniff. sniff.... he... hey fellers??? snort... can you guys vo.. vote up gonnano for me? sniffffff

[podium123456]

Policy lynch

Vote: podium123456

for almost killing the game

Is this a serious vote?

[podium123456]

yes...generally only think scum dispute something that much

A. It wasn't

ME

that almost killed the game, it was gonnano... for quoting an ongoing game.

B. Gonnano accused me of being scum based on his (incorrect) notion that i was acting differently in this game... i disputed that. And here you are telling me that i am scum for disputing that? Really? What was i supposed to do, just agree with him and lynch myself?

Your vote on me is weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out. Seems very scummy.

UNVOTE
VOTE: millar13

[podium123456]

Wow, defensive rather quickly. Considering that this is only the second page, I find it disturbing that you were so quick to become defensive.

??

If someone seriously accuses you of being scum, then what is wrong with defending yourself... regardless of if it's page 1 or 21?

I'm 'disturbed' that you are more concerned with my justified response, than with his seemingly scummy accusations/vote.

[podium123456]

Keep on going if you'd like, but you are digging your grave rather quickly.

wow, what a cheesy line...

I don't think anything was 'serious' until you reacted the way you did.

What??

In this post, i asked millar if it was a serious vote... in this post he said that it was -- all

before

i reacted to him.

Would you like to rethink your statement?

Also, what is your opinion on the case that millar made against me?

[podium123456]

When I say serious, I mean lynching serious, not out of RVS serious.

Contradicting yourself? In this post, you implied that something serious had occurred. Now you imply otherwise. Explain.

Besides that, when i said 'serious' i meant a non RVS vote/accusation. It was a serious accusation, and it occurred prior to my reaction. Your statement remains false, unless you can show otherwise.

Millar thinks that "'generally' only scum dispute something that much". What do I think of that? I wouldn't say that it's a scum tell, but that's just me.

Whether or not disputing something a lot is a scumtell, isn't really the point (although i doubt many people would agree that it is). The point is that I made ONE response to the accusation that gonnano made against me... and millar thought that i was excessively disputing it. Comment on this, please.

The fact that he voted because of it doesn't send any flags up due to the facts that a) that is the only vote against you, and b) It's early in the game.

What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?

1.) You have immediately gotten defensive after one vote was cast your way. At the very least that your antsy.

2.) On top of that, you had a text book example of an OMGUS vote toward millar.

3.) You attempt to draw attention away from yourself by asking my opinion of millar's actions.

1/2. - i dont have a problem with people voting me if they have a legitimate reason. if i think those reasons are BS, then naturally i would point that out. if i feel those reasons are scummy, then i may place a vote. what's so scummy about that?

3. Yes, because my response to millar made you suspicious of me. if millars actions were scummy, then my reaction was justified. so if you better understand millars actions, you will better understand my reaction.

[podium123456]

What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?

A lot, case in point, RVS.

Uhhh... well no crap... if it was a RVS vote. The whole point of this is that he specifically said it wasn't.

Also, Podium, please quite telling me to comment on things, if I have something to say, I'll say it. I don't need you forcing me to give a word.

I don't care whether you have something to say about it or not. I asked you a question/to comment, and would like an answer.

Your response to the third... regardless, you were attempting to draw attention away from yourself.

sigh... yes... like i said. i felt your assessment of me was incorrect... to show that, i have to discuss millars actions with you. so it's not like i just refused to discuss your allegations against me and tried to shift the subject. but since you fail to comprehend that, you keep making it a catch-22 situation for me. whatever.

Considering the context, I still believe the vote was semi-RVS.

Who cares about the context... he

said

it was a serious vote. Why are you fighting this so much?

I would also like to point out that I don't think the post was contradictory at all. I used the word serious in quotes, intending to imply that I still didn't think it was too serious. And just for the future, let me expand my definition of serious: Any vote that is not RVS or weighted by other votes.

Wait a minute... so if you are saying that you consider non-RVS votes to be serious, then you just contradicted your statement that 'nothing was 'serious' until i reacted'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To those that are reading this, i feel our discussion may be clouding up the actual reason that we are having this discussion. I'll condense it (although i feel that there is good info to be gained from analyzing teejays discussions above).

1. Teejay found my defensiveness 'disturbing' (implying possibly scummy), because it was so early in the game.

2. I told him that i was defensive because someone had seriously accused me of being scum.

3. He replied that nothing serious had occurred.

That is FALSE, as millar

specifically

said that his accusation was serious. All of the conversation after that is me trying to get teejay to recognize that he was wrong. Once he realizes that a serious accusation had occurred, he can re-visit whether or not my defensiveness was 'disturbing'.

[podium123456]

That being said, podium is being a little too defensive here. His reaction to millar was understandable, but his reaction to teejay is less so.

*facepalm*

You tell me i was justified in my reaction to millar. Therefore, teejays criticism of it was wrong. But when i try to tell teejay that his criticism was wrong, you criticise me for doing so.

another catch-22 for me.

[podium123456]

i dont really understand your definition, but i dont want to get off on a discussion about the proper use of the phrase catch-22... it can mean the same thing as a 'no win' or 'lose-lose' scenario. Link

replace 'catch-22' with 'lose-lose' if you want.

[podium123456]

Yeah, that's basically what my definition is saying, but what I mean by it is that it wasn't a lose-lose situation. The way for you to "win" would have been to not overreact to teejay. You seemed to be saying that there was nothing you could say that ODDin would not use against you, but that's not the case.

Ok.

But notice that i didn't overreact, when i first addressed it. Teejay failed to understand what i was saying, and i had to keep repeating myself. That gives the illusion of an overreaction, but it's because teejay isnt comprehending it... not because i am overreacting.

The lose-lose comes from the fact that if i dont try to get teejay to understand his criticism was wrong, it becomes a justified criticism to him (and possibly others). But if i do try to get him to understand it was wrong, i get criticized by oddin for overreacting.

[podium123456]

It's behavioural. Yes, I agree with you on the basic notion that teejay was wrong. However, how you react to his accusation - even though I think it's a wrong accusation - seems too extreme to me. I get the feeling you're scared.

You believe that this is an extreme reaction?

[podium123456]

Taken together with posts 49 and 51, yes, it feels rather extreme.

Yes, but that's because of what i discussed here.

What was i supposed to do?

Not

try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand? ???

[podium123456]

Oops i missed this post.

Podiums defense seems awfully weak

What are you referring to?

and seemed to try and force a contradiction that wasn't there.
Podium, TJ did say it was serious, but as he said in post 50, he was talking about a different extent of seriousness (which was even in the part you quoted, so you certainly didn't miss it)

Teejay now says that he considers a non-RVS vote to be 'serious'. Yet in this post, he implies that nothing serious had occurred...

after

millar's non-RVS vote.

Do you not see a contradiction there?

[podium123456]

You're still saying two things. Do you consider millar's vote on me to be a non-RVS vote? (remember HE SAID IT WAS) If yes, then why did you imply that nothing serious had happened? If no, then are you saying that millar lied?

I don't think the vote was serious enough to warrant the reaction you gave. You over reacted. Furthermore, I still believe that the vote against you was slightly RVS, after all, policy votes are hardly worth any weight. The post you continue to quote has a serious with quotes on it, like this: 'serious'. Recognize it?

You are leaving out important details.

There were

two

aspects to millars vote... one was a policy vote (which was entirely incorrect), the other was an accusation of being scum based on my 'excessive dispute'.

Again, i ask you... how was my defense an overreaction? ?? What should i have done?? Agreed with him??

[podium123456]

this is stupid. now it's how i reacted to

you

? am i in the twilight zone?

what did i say to you that was so outrageous? you gave me a lose-lose scenario, and i pointed that out. what is so heated/emotional/whatever about that? where did i 'flip-out' on you?

i ask you again... what should i have said to teejay when he made an incorrect observation? should i have tried to correct it, or should i have not disputed it? I'll assume that you would say i should have tried to correct it. Ok, i did.

He didn't understand what i was saying. Should i have continued to try and get him to understand, or should i have let the incorrect observation stand? Is it my fault i had to repeat myself? Because you are criticizing me for doing so. Is that a fair critique?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

you guys are blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion, and because i am having to fight 4 people saying the same thing about

different

situations, it looks like i am freaking out... when all i am trying to do is set the record straight. here are the facts:

I made ONE post to gonnano regarding his accusation, and millar said i excessively disputed it.

I made ONE post to millar regarding his accusation, and teejay said i overreacted.

I made ONE post to teejay regarding his accusation (which i had to repeat because he didn't understand) and oddin says i overreacted.

I made ONE post to oddin explaining that he gave me a lose-lose situation (which i had to repeat because he didnt understand) and oddin says i overreacted.

seriously guys... wtf.

[podium123456]

It's not only what you say, it's how you say it.

Dont gloss over that last post of mine... respond to what i asked of you. Where did i get emotional/heated/flipped-out with you? Show me.

When teejay maintained his incorrect observation after i tried to explain it to him, should i have continued trying to get him to understand it... or should i have dropped it?

What isn't accurate about the facts i listed at the bottom?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The reason i am persistent about this, is because if people would take the time to break down these accusations individually, i believe they will see that there were no unusual reactions. They are 4 separate situations that are being exaggerated and treated as one.

p.s. - and i hope you arent criticizing me for not putting a bunch of smileys and lol's in my posts. my attitude is what it is... i am sharp/abrasive/sarcastic at times. but i try not to be more rude than the person i am dealing with.

[podium123456]

here.... you want meta, here it is Link This is the only town sided game i can link to. There is an ongoing game in which i have been confirmed town (by death) if you want to find that one and look at it as well.

but again, i want you to respond to what i have asked. i believe that if you go step-by-step on each of the different accusations, you will find nothing unusual. i dont even care if my meta shows that i have given the same tone before as town... the point is that i haven't overreacted here to begin with.

[podium123456]

Okay then.
You being emotional and heated in response to me is mainly showed in this line:

What was i supposed to do?

Not

try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand? ???

See... this is EXACTLY what i mean. People are pointing to the END of my conversations and saying 'oh you over-reacted'... but the exasperation at that point was due to me having to re-explain what i felt was a very basic situation. Look at the FIRST response i made to you here. Does that look like an overheated/over the top response?

When you didn't understand me, i became more sarcastic... but that's only because you couldn't understand what i considered a pretty basic situation. (and you still dont, i believe)

This line reads to me in a broken, crying voice, mostly with the help of the 3 question marks at the end and the emphasised "not". Lots of question marks on the whole represent higher tones and more emotion put into the statement. (These are used in many other posts as well)

you are reading way too much into 3 question marks. i usually go with the roll eyes smiley, but thought that might be a little too rude.

The facts in the end are, well, very interestingly phrased. Interestingly to the point of being an argument against you on their own right. This, especially:

I made ONE post to teejay regarding his accusation (which i had to repeat because he didn't understand)

No matter how you look at it, you didn't make one post to teejay. You made five. Yes, I know you said in the parentheses you "repeated" it, but it's a very awkward way to put it.

Again... another example of what i have been saying. And this goes back to the VERY first post i made to you... you still arent getting what im saying. if teejay had understood what i meant in my first post, then everything would be cool. he didn't. i HAD to keep arguing the point, unless i wanted the incorrect observation to stand. then you say 'oh, yeah but look how many times you did it... you are just overreacting (paraphrasing)'.

The point is that i didn't become more 'heated' (in your opinion) until i had to repeat myself. Is that really all that unusual for mafia?

[podium123456]

oh. my. god. now mallowgeno... who basically hasn't said squat all game comes in and puts me at L-1. are you serious?

well, i know exactly whats gonna happen. everyones gonna start shaking their heads going 'yep, mmhm, ayup... that podium fellow is just doing too much overreacting, so he's scum'. when the truth is that i havent done one scummy thing... nearly

everyone

is piling on me for a BS reason that started when millar made his little 'oh you overreacted, so you are probably scum' remark. then 'over-reacted' became the hottest new catch-phrase.

good grief people.

[podium123456]

Almost no instances of multiple question marks

What!? Did you read the same game i did? Right at the beginning (page 3, i think) i made a post that had FOUR instances of multiple question marks ALONG WITH a question mark smiley.

Are ya kiddin me?

[podium123456]

Regardless, are you realising you're arguing over how I interpret your emotional reaction?

Oh i'm sorry... i forgot to ask permission.

Hey, i'm at L-1 here. Do you mind if i challenge some of the reasons people are using to say that i am scum?


GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK

[podium123456]

Almost no instances of multiple question marks
Trying to drop the issue several times
Saying things along the lines of "well, I've said what there is to say so do whatever you want with it"
Saying "*shrug*"

i just went over that thread closer... since it has been over a year (and it was my first forum game).

Dude... seriously... how close did you read that thread? In the first big argument with elvis knits my posts were peppered with multiple question marks, question mark smileys, and roll eye smileys. on the 12th page (near the end) i made arguments where i almost verbatim repeat the type of AtE that i have made in this thread "what do you want me to do? stamp my feet and argue to infinity until they believe me" PUNCTUATED with a question mark smiley. You're telling me that isnt somewhat consistent with my activity here?

Now did i have that attitude all through the thread? Of course not if there was nothing for me to dispute in that manner.

The **shrug** you reference above was actually an insult to a case someone made on me... as in it was weaksauce. Remember you are comparing an ENTIRE game to ONE timeframe in this game, so periods in that old game where i wasn't facing exasperating debate will appear differently.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For perhaps a better comparison to my current mafia attitude, i would suggest you find the ongoing game that i am confirmed townie in, but dead. If you do a search of my posts, the game is on the 4th page of my results. cant say much more than that, as i am respecting the moderators rules.

But i would suggest you check it out... i only lived one day, so its short... but you will see more of the attitude that i presented here. There are actually a lot of similarities with this game... multiple people ganged up on me and i got

extremely

frustrated that i was having to explain myself multiple times and they still werent getting it. Seriously, i think this will show you that what you see here is my normal demeanor when faced with this type of debate.

[podium123456]

Now that you mention it ODDin, he has been AtEing a lot:



Lol I found this one very funny:


Overall analysis: Scum

This post is garbage.

Again, someone is pointing to the END of an exasperating debate session and damning me because i got worked up. Without giving

any

input as to whether the initial reaction was normal/correct.

The AtE's here are consistent with the AtE's found in the game i linked... and are especially consistent with the ones in the game i cant name. Both in which i was town. That is a FACT.

But it's mostly garbage because you havent said jack all game, and then jump in and say 'oh tee hee ur right it's AtE... better lynch him' and put me at L-1.

[podium123456]

I didn't read the game until the end, I read about 5 pages and got a certain very consistent impression. You have handled an attack on you in a very cool and controlled manner, while the way you handle it here doesn't seem cool and controlled.
The fact that you insist on this is seriously ridiculous. It's an impression I got. It's a subjective thing. I can't pinpoint every single phrase and every single smiley that makes me think this or that. It's an overall impression.
The correct townie response should have been to say "well, I'm not really that upset, I dunno" and let it be. Not continue discussing with me whether or not you're upset.

Regarding the last two paragraphs: You're an idiot, and I hope you didn't just kill the game for good.

You're wrong. Flat out wrong.

The first argument i got into with elvis knits i didnt handle in a calm and controlled manner. Shall i start posting quotes?

At the END of the game i make nearly IDENTICAL AtE's as i have here. Why is this not important to you? You were the one that wanted the meta... why are you not considering the full scope?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I haven't broken any rules... i didnt link or quote that game... i just said theres one out there that i am finished in, if you find it you will see similarities. The rule isn't there to prevent observation, it's to prevent people in THAT game from discussing the game outside of the thread while they are still involved. i.e. scum talking to each other through pms or chat or something.

[podium123456]

I'll say this... IF i get killed or lynched, i hope to god that one or both of oddin and teejay are scum. then i wont feel so bad for having this blow up like it did. cause ive never seen so many circular/illogical arguments in my life.

"yeah i think he was wrong there. but you really overreacted when you had to explain it to him multiple times without him understanding it."

or

"boy u sure got defensive quick! we're only on page 2!"
"uhh well... he accused me of being scum"
"no he didnt"
"yeah... right here where he said it... do you see? so then you understand why i was defensive, right?"
"i cant hear you cuz i have potatos in my ears nyahh nyahhhh nyahhhh"

???

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

despite all this, i really do like this game. no joke.

[podium123456]

I cant believe you guys are willing to lynch me based on a comparison of my first scum game that happened a year and a half ago, and this one. Especially when there are certain segments that are nearly VERBATIM with what has been held against me here. What is the point of meta, if you don't consider NEARLY IDENTICAL phrasings? Observe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Said March 2009:

i've said ALL i can say about who i think is scum, and NO ONE is following. what am i supposed to do? stamp my feet and remain on him until the internet explodes?

Said July 2010:

I did my little random vote thing... what the hell do you want me to do... start crying until everybody votes my random vote?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Said Feb. 2009:

Huh???

Said July 2010:

What??

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Said Feb. 2009:

Wow. I feel like i'm in the twilight zone... i keep specifically explaining the scenario i gave as a reason, and people apparently either aren't reading it or don't understand it.

Said July 2010:

this is stupid. am i in the twilight zone?... Is it my fault i had to repeat myself?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Said Feb. 2009:

Not disdain... exasperation from having to repeat myself so much.

Said July 2010:

but the exasperation at that point was due to me having to re-explain what i felt was a very basic situation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Does this post look like the post of someone who handled an attack in a cool and controlled manner? There is shouting, insulting, emphasizing, and ZOMG THREE ELLIPSES at the end... and this happened on the FOURTH PAGE of that thread.

Odinnn.... SURELY you jest when you tell me that that post is cool and controlled, and that my posts here comparatively aren't.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LOOK AT THIS SHIT:

Said March 2009 - 1 month into the game

As it stands though, I am getting really annoyed with Podium and his theory and the arguments that have been had since then. Its really drawing a lot of attention, for absolutely no reason and it makes reading the thread painful.

Hey, well make sure you aren't annoyed with the guy that attacked and inaccurately described my gameplay to spark the exchange, and that admitted that our discussion was not furthering the game... yet continued to keep arguing.

By all means, direct your annoyance fully on me.

It was my mistake for defending myself, i should have just let him say whatever he wanted.

Does this not mirror the attitude i have given here, that i am about to be lynched over? And look at his description of me... he is not describing someone that is just dropping stuff because of indifference.

Seriously people.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And do me a favor and ISO the three people that are voting me. Sawyer, millar, and mallow. Are you kidding me? Sawyer and millar have THREE posts total. Millar's vote on me is 100% bogus. Millar and mallow aren't far behind.

Helllooooo townnnnnnnn... this does NOT add up. Wake up!

[podium123456]

Bullshit. There's NO way you can tell me that my response here is cool and collected.

You are lying. Every reason you gave me as to why you described me as 'flipping out/emotional/heated' in this thread, is contained in that post... except to a higher level. And there are PLENTY more like that there. There is subjectivity, and then there is night and day.

I am almost 100% convinced you are mafia at this point, because you simply aren't being logical... to the point of lynching.

I also PROVED that i didn't have an 'ah just drop it im not gonna argue' attitude, as you said that i did. Anyone that was in that game knows that i argued non-stop. Here is

another

quote from a town player POST game:

Podium: Suffered from the same problem that I did in wanting to argue over whatever issue was at hand instead of finding scum.

You asked me for meta where i acted in a SIMILAR way as town. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. I provided them to you, and now you are ignoring them. I've pointed you to a more recent example, and you completely refuse to look at it. It's because you never really cared about the meta (you only read 5 pages), and really just wanted to appear like you were giving me a proper and thorough analysis. Well, your conclusions dont hold up to the TRUTH.


I'm not claiming to you... you are scum. I still have faith that the town will see what is going on here and back off. If by some bizarre chance you

are

town, then you have entered a state where you are just refusing to consider that your analysis might be wrong... even though i am posting proof. Hopefully your teammates can make up for that.


If you think im going down without a fight, you are wrong -- so you can stop trying to intimidate me.

Now, make some cute little paragraph about... 'hoo boy you really need to calm down man... you're really embarrassing yourself'

blah blah blah

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The back and forth quotes i put were also made to rebut mallows rock solid scumhunting case -- that i was using AtE a lot here and was scummy because of it. I made nearly the SAME AtE statements in that game as town, and involving very similar circumstances.

Hell, let me try this...

Mallow. Any comment?

[podium123456]

Look i understand you probably dont like me at this point. Which i can understand, but you have to understand that i am fighting here. Set everything aside for a moment and consider this from my POV, and how frustrating it might be:

There are TWO major arguments in that thread that riled me up like this argument did. One occurred on the first 5 or 6 pages with elvis knits. The other occurred on pages 11-13ish with DDD. You TELL me that you noticed there was similarities with what you are criticising here at the start, but then it stopped. Later you tell me you only read the first 5 or so pages.

Well, OBVIOUSLY when that first argument petered out, my demeanor changed. (unless i was just a 100% jerkwad all the time -- dont comment on that) Since you didn't read past that, you didn't see that the same type of reactions happened again later in the game... and you assume that i continued in a happy/joking manner for the rest of the game. That is false, and a re-emergence of those behaviors would support my claim that this is my status quo. But because you didn't read it, you just assume ... hell i dont know what you assume... that i am lying?... and you refuse to take it into consideration.

It's frustrating because it exactly fits what you were looking for. A similar response during a similar argument, a period of civility, and then another similar response during a similar argument. Since you stopped when the first period ended, you just say ''ah yeah i saw it... BUT THEN YOU STOPPED, and i didnt read any more"

F*%# whether or not you are scum or town... do you not understand how frustrating that is to me, when

you

are pretty much leading the charge for my lynch?

Does anyone else understand this?

*screams into pillow*

[podium123456]

Learn from this and get better for future games.

The problem isn't with me, dude. I detailed how your conclusion isn't logically sound, yet you are prepared to move forward with it. It isn't logical, there is no debating that.

If

you

are town, maybe you can learn from it. I can't improve much more than irrefutably showing that your logic is flawed. If you don't recognize that, it isn't me that needs improvement.

At this point, i imagine you will stick to your story. Either because you are scum and want me lynched, or because you are town and have let personality clashes override logic.

[podium123456]

I got a similar impression reading the linked game... like the argument was the most important part, not some sort of percieved personal attack against him.

I'd like to know what Sawyer and millar think about the comments that have been made recently.

Can you give me an example of me responding to a perceived personal attack? That's kind of a vague description.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Oddinn criticised my reactions as being 'flipping-out, extreme, emotional, and heated'. When pressed to give an example, he said it was because i used excessive question marks, and emphasized some words... along with some AtE/attitude.

A. Do you think 'flipping out/extreme' is an accurate description of my responses in this thread? Or is that possibly an (dare i say it?) overreaction on his part?

B. Do you consider this post to be made by someone that is non-emotional/calm and collected?

How does that compare to this post, in your opinion? Similar, harsher, or weaker

[podium123456]

I will read the whole of that game if you insist there's a major difference there.

I was wrong, here i'll even specifically point you to it... the DDD argument starts on page 6 when he makes a comment that my logic and arguments have been poor -- nothing more. I then spend 3 pages attempting to prove him wrong, with behavior similar to what i had shown here, and involving similar situations (even RVS subjectivity). EVEN INCLUDING YOUR HOLY GRAIL OF MULTIPLE QUESTION MARKS.

I don't quite know how much more i could possibly do to satisfy what you asked for... short of traveling back in time and changing all of their names to ones in this game.

You asked for meta showing the things that you have criticized me here for, notably multiple punctuation marks/emphasizing and attitude/emotion. You already stated that i exhibited those qualities in the first few pages. Remember this post? The AtE/multiple question marks/attitude DO return later in the game.

Sure you can argue something like 'perceived calmness' or 'level of emotion' for eternity and never lose (although you might look ridiculous), but JU CANT DENY THE TRUTH OF THE MULTIPLE QUESTION MARKS!!!

<--- but, kinda --->

Seriously... they ARE there.

[podium123456]

eh i dont know... i just wanted to say something.

what approach am i taking, and why would it mean a pointless game?

Ugh. What a horrible chain of events was started when i made this post.

I swear to god next time i play, im not saying anything for the first week and a half.

(although, i think i might have said that the last time i played.... )

[podium123456]

What you're failing to understand is that it isn't logic what we're talking about.

The logic aspect was only brought into the discussion when i made this post, discussing the flawed logic of your approach to the analysis.

It's perfectly okay for two people to read the same text so that one will think it's heated and emotional and the other one will think it isn't. There isn't a distinct right and wrong here.

Right. I have pointed this out several times.

There isn't a right or wrong... but there can be disingenuous. In that one post, i shouted, insulted, emphasized, and belittled the person... my attitude was very cocky and rude. For you to act like that post is less emotionally charged than some of the posts you have critiqued here (for example) is quizzical to me... but that's subjective.

To act like it isn't even

similar

gets into disingenuous territory. Can i prove that? No. But i feel i can make a compelling case by comparing/contrasting the text.

The fact that you continue trying to "disprove" my subjective interpretation is truly magnificent.
And it's not only the multiple question marks, you know. I mentioned them in an attempt to analyse my own interpretation and why I thought what I did.

I have tried to show that my reactions were similar, using posts dripping with attitude/emotion, along with the unique punctuation that you highlighted.

You said that:

Lots of question marks on the whole represent higher tones and more emotion put into the statement. (These are used in many other posts as well)

The other game has the same type of question mark use appearing all through the game, but especially during the two arguments i am comparing to this one. You wont even concede that those posts are

similar

, even though you previously said that type of punctuation is indicative of higher tones and more emotion. Instead, you describe them as lacking enhanced emotion/cool calm. I don't understand why that type of punctuation doesn't mean the same (or at least is similar) as it does here. Can you understand why i feel that you arent being genuine?

And i know that you add on... 'but you have to understand the tone/attitude i am getting internally'. That's why i choose posts that are dripping with attitude/insults/emotion.

BY THE WAY, here's something I said long ago and you never answered or addressed in any way:

I don't really like podium's behaviour prior to the lock. He talked as if there was no discussion and no thing to talk about and it was still RVS. However, there was a little exchange between teejay and myself, so if podium thought it's so bad there's no discussion and that we really need to generate some discussion, he could've at least express some opinion on that issue.

I found nothing of substance to comment on. teejay's post was made in a comical fashion. i couldn't tell if you were serious or joking in your response... and frankly didnt care. it was the scenario i had predicted would occur, in my first post in the game.

[podium123456]

However, they are now starting to become more reasonable -- especially the post that I just quoted. Not sure whether this redeems you or not, but there it is.

Yeah... I am very logic driven, and rather semantic when it comes to debating. I try to remain civil, but as you can see, there is a sharpness to my tongue. When i feel i am right, and that logic/facts are on my side, i can get

quite

worked up. I found myself up against several different people criticizing me about separate incidents, culminating in the display i put on today.

But, i would still stand by anything i have said... and feel that underneath all my attitude I have been more in the right, than in the wrong.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A. Do you think 'flipping out/extreme' is an accurate description of my responses in this thread? Or is that possibly an (dare i say it?) overreaction on his part?

I think that your posts have been extreme, yes.

I should have specified that i was referring to my posts that occurred prior to oddin making that accusation. There's no question that my posts today have been extreme.

For instance, would you consider this post to be 'flipping out' or 'extreme'?

B. Do you consider this post to be made by someone that is non-emotional/calm and collected?

How does that compare to this post, in your opinion? Similar, harsher, or weaker

The first linked post seemed to me to be the more collected one of the two. Mostly in that post you got your facts together and presented them, with only a little sarcasm and maybe a few more capital letters than I personally would have expected in a response. When you look at the relative amounts of reason and AtE in each of those two examples, the first one wins.

Again i need to clarify what i was asking. I am only concerned with the emotional aspect in this comparison... not the amount of reason or AtE. When contemplating how emotionally charged these posts are, which would you say is more heated? Or do you believe they are equal?

First

Second


(and actually, the second post contains a link to a post that concisely described my reasons/facts in more detail, without any attitude whatsoever. would that change your previous observation?)

What I was referring to by "percieved personal attack" were comments like the one where you said you were in a catch-22, basically saying that you had been trapped into something. In retrospect, AtE might be closer to the mark of what I was trying to say.

In that case, i would direct you to the AtE quotes i highlighted earlier from both threads. Since you take meta into consideration, do you feel that the AtE's in that game are similar to the ones i have made here?

[podium123456]

Podium, please claim.

There's no need for a claim. 2 of the people voting me have only made 3 posts in this entire game. The third hasn't contributed much more. Are you really prepared for our first lynch to head to the gallows based on those votes, and a hammer?

There has been a lot of emotion thrown around lately (admittedly, a lot from me), but i feel we may actually be getting into some substantive scumhunting now. I want to address/debate each of the cases made against me. There is no rush... we have over 2 weeks until deadline. If the result of discussions is that my behavior was not as scummy as initially thought, then me claiming now would negatively impact the town.

If we have discussions, and i remain the lynch candidate, then i will claim. I am open to opinion on this stance... but i would like to hear solid reasons if you oppose.

[podium123456]

I'll respond to gonnano first, as he may be short on time. I'm splitting your post up into two sections, you will see why in a minute.

1. I wouldn't consider that link (your post 48) to be excessive if I were reading it by itself, but in context it does seem like an overreaction.

There are a couple of things intertwined here, but i am suggesting that oddin's characterization of my reaction is, in fact, an overreaction. Does 'flipping out' or 'extreme' accurately describe that post, in your opinion? This doesn't concern whether or not it is an overreaction... only if it is indicative of someone that is 'flipping out' or acting extreme?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2. I'll answer the rest of your post all at once:
Obviously the side-by-side examples of AtE that you gave were very similar, but how many posts did the examples from the other game span?

Actually, I asked for your opinion specifically because i feel oddin is being disingenuous with his answers. Yes, it is concerning a subjective area... but i feel the examples are distinct enough to determine if his answers seem out of the ordinary.

You say that the side by side examples are

very

similar. If i were to press it further, i wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that the first link was more emotionally charged than the second. Would this be fair? Or no?

When oddin examined those two specific quotes, not only did he feel that they

weren't

similar... but he felt the 1st one came from a calm/cool collected person, and the 2nd from someone who wasn't calm and in control.

Granted subjectivity plays a part. However... based on the similarities of the examples, and on the level of emotion contained in the first link, i dont find it plausible that he really felt that way. It seems to be nearly the complete opposite of what one would logically conclude. Your opinion supports my suspicion that he is being disingenuous. I don't know if he is being disingenuous for scummy reasons, or for personal reasons... but i am making note of it.

What are your thoughts on this? Are his answers plausible/logical to you? Would anyone else like to participate/comment?

First

Second

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think the relevant idea here is not the amount of emotion in each game, but rather the proportion of emotion in each game. I would say that from what I've read the

amounts

of emotion in the examples you gave were similar, but in your other game there was much more reasoning and pro-town play to act as a counterbalance.

With a very short response here, i just want to say that you have to keep in mind that you are examining an entire game there, and comparing it to the first big argument here. If you were to cut off your comparison at page 5 in that thread, you would find that the behavior is quite consistent.

[podium123456]

Darn gonnano... i just realized that i mixed up some of your response. When you said 'side by side' AtE examples, i thought you were referring to the two individual posts i asked you to comment on... you were including the list of side by side quotes i made. Were the two specific posts included in what you described as very similar? I think they were, therefore the second paragraph is still applicable. If not, let me know.


Regarding the quote to quote AtE comparisons i gave:

The third paragraph above, is still relevant.

Earlier you said this:

I got a similar impression reading the linked game... like the argument was the most important part, not some sort of percieved personal attack against him.

I'd like to know what Sawyer and millar think about the comments that have been made recently.

You have clarified that you meant 'AtE's' when you said 'perceived personal attacks'. What are you alleging occurred in this game? That i made frequent AtE's? If not, then what.

If you are saying that i made AtE's in this thread, but didn't in the old thread... that's not the case. I made those quote to quote comparisons to show that i DID make AtE's in the old thread, where i was a townie.

[podium123456]

Your response to millar DID seem excessive to me (which is why I considered TeeJay's point a valid one) , because you became very defensive and tried to shift the blame to me. I'm not denying that I was at fault, but it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"

TeeJay made what seemed to me to be a valid point, and your response came off as trying too hard to make it seem invalid.

Okay, there is a

lot

going on here. This will involve several people, and cases they have made against me. I want to give some insight into my mindset as all of this quickly unfolded, as well as to make some sense of the utter confusion as unrelated points started to become intertwined.

It's long.

Regarding my response to millar:

Link

For the first part, there was no need for me to ask him what his opinion was on who 'broke the game'... as it was undisputed (as you agree). So, I educated him on the facts. The reason i tried to shift the blame, is because you

were

the blame. You know? Getting him to seriously consider lynching you because he 'broke the game' wasn't even on my radar... because i felt it was a ridiculous reason. If you believe that i was trying to get him to vote you, then i can see how my reaction might look scummy... but i was just informing him where the blame lied. Note that oddin also mentioned/agreed that this point couldnt be a scum-tell in this post.

The second part is what i took seriously... when he said that i excessively disputed you, and was therefore, scum. I told him that you had accused me of being scum, and that i had made one response to that. Then i made an AtE comment, that is consistent with my past play. When people say that i overreacted to millar, i only contemplate it regarding this point... as the first issue i regard as just a dumb issue.

So when i look at that, i see my statement of the facts, and an AtE (but really, isn't it better described as a sarcastic comment?). Now, is that an overreaction? So much so that it is scummy? In my opinion, it is nothing unusual. If you are considering the first part of my response to be an overreaction, then i ask you to think about how i was approaching it at the time, as i wrote above.

Then comes the overly defensive part. As i have pointed out, it was a serious accusation and a VOTE. Overly defensive, and overreacting are pretty much in the same vein, so what i wrote above would apply.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And in the first of several intertwined/confusing, and borderline contradictory developments (from my POV)... my harshest critic (Oddin) later says that what you and teejay considered to be an over-reaction,

he

found understandable. Link.

A little confusing (dare i say contradictory), considering that some of the elements of my response to millar were

prettyy

damn close to things he later criticized... along with a VOTE. But... you know... i have a feeling that any inconsistency here will be sidestepped under the umbrella of 'subjectivity'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Now...


When teejay comes into the picture, it gets into the argument that he and i had. He said that i was too QUICK to become defensive, and this becomes a

separate

scumtrait, while the issue of overreacting still remains.

I ask him (with a fairly low key post) why it matters that i am defensive on page 2... as a serious vote/accusation had occurred. There is some sarcasm in my post... but remember, he had just made an accusatory comment to me. Is my sarcasm enough so that it makes it unusually scummy? Oddin feels this is part of an overall overreaction... although it is the FIRST time i have responded to this new accusation.

teejay returns to say that he doesn't believe that anything serious happened. now there are THREE separate issues at hand, all in the blink of an eye. Can you see why i might start to get flustered at this point? Not only do i have gonnano's vote/accusation, and millars vote/accusation... but i have THREE additional accusations concerning my response to millar. sawyer later mentions this third reason as he places a vote on me.

I respond with this post. Yes, there is some sarcasm... but i felt i pretty clearly explained how his latest accusation wasn't correct. because it's a pretty straight forward thing, right? If you take out my comment about his cheesy line (which it was ) the

only

additional un-neccessary input is "What??". Oddin feels that my response is part of an overall overreaction... although it is the FIRST time i have responded to this new accusation.

Think about what all is going on now. Are you ready?

Gonnano has a vote/accusation on me. Millar thinks that my response to gonnano is scummy and votes me. Gonnano and teejay think that my response to millar is an overreaction, while oddin feels it is justified. Teejay introduces a new accusation regarding my millar vote, that oddin feels isn't valid. When i attempt to resolve that accusation (with a post oddin considers an overreaction) teejay misses the point and introduces ANOTHER accusation regarding my millar vote. oddin also feels that point isn't valid (but sawyer does), and considers my attempt to resolve it an overreaction.


ayiyiyiyi

Im tired of typing today. I am stopping here. What follows is a jumbled up mess of accusations and defenses (served with heavy sarcasm) all centered on me while i try to keep my sanity as the S really hit the fan.

Is this helping any? Do you guys want me to continue the activity flow tomorrow?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The way i see it is that there are two aspects to my 'issue' right now. My behavior/reactions through the chain reaction posts that exploded, and the comparison of my behavior in a completed townie game to this one.

Oddin feels that i am exhibiting different gamestyles between the two game, and that i am scum here... this is false, and i have started breaking down that case in a substantive manner (imo). Work in progress.

Then we are left with my behaviors/reactions to everything that occurred recently. Work in progress, but i will do my best to explain/make sense. I hope i have conveyed some of the stress i was being hit with all at once, and perhaps you can better understand the things i said/did... as well as compare it to my actions in the completed and linked townie game.

I understand i am the focus of attention right now. But, I would appreciate it if someone on my wagon would unvote, as i am afraid that scum is waiting to hammer me. There is plenty of time to go, and i think the truth will come out... both about me, and about others. Taking a vote off isn't necessarily going to prevent me from being lynched in the end... but it will prevent these valuable conversations from continuing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pshhhh and just think... a few days ago people were complaining that there wasnt much to talk about.




DONKAY OUT

[podium123456]

Now that I reread your post, my thoughts:

The bulk of your scumminess lays in the mood of your posts. Angry reactions in Mafia are actually quite common, I am not concerned so much about your reaction as I am about how quickly you reacted. Typically, I see people who react the way you did after the about three votes on them, whereas you only had one. The fact that you gave an OMGUS vote doesn't help the case.

So you are saying that people dont respond to a scum accusation until they have about three votes? Sorry, i dont believe that. As a matter of fact, from my experience, NOT responding to it would result in people accusing the accused of avoiding the issue.

As far as the vote... i would have made that vote regardless of if it was on me or not. It was the scummiest looking thing i had seen so far in the game... it just so happened that it was on me.

As far as OMGUS... that concept is by no means a rock solid scum finder, imo. When a reasonable case is made, along with the vote, it loses most of it's scumminess. You know? It's like, why should i be dinged if his vote/accusation was scummy enough to receive a vote?

[podium123456]

Podium, regarding the question marks, in case there was a misunderstanding: what I meant was multiple question marks coming TOGETHER as a single punctuation sign, such as "??" and "???", not just many sentences ending with a single question mark.

Compare:

What is wrong with you? <- fairly calm

What is wrong with you??? <- bordering on hysterical

Again with the question marks... sheesh.

Is there something particular you are referring to here? Hasn't anytime i have made reference of 'multiple question marks' referred to what you just described?

I have a question for you. Was this post made by someone that was calm, cool, and collected?

[podium123456]

I mentioned them again because I thought you didn't understand what I meant.
The post you linked to now does look heated and emotional, and it didn't escape my attention when I read the thread. But it was basically the only one in that vein. The rest, or most of the rest, were much calmer.

Ok, well in my opinion you are going back on your word. You asked me (three times) to provide examples of a game in which i reacted similarly. I provided you with a game in which during the first argument, i responded in a heated/emotional/hysterical manner. You have confirmed this. Why are you not honoring your word? Was it because it was a lie when you said it?

... your excuse is that 'oh well, over the course of the game you seemed more calm and controlled'. Right. Over the course of the

game

. You are comparing the first few pages of this game, to an entire game that spanned nearly 20 pages and several months. Logically, you would see a range of behaviors from me, as the situations dictated. You didn't go to that thread to find calm/controlled behavior so you could compare it to the absence of it in this thread, you went looking for the presence of heated/emotional behavior.

If you ignore the posts related to the mania surrounding the first argument i got mixed up in here, how would you describe my posting manner?

For instance, here and here.

[podium123456]

OMGUS and DOUBLE/TRIPLE post king

meh

Why did you even bother signing up to play?

[podium123456]

What is this? Page 4,millar and I made 1 or 2 relevant posts each and it's become a back and forth between TJ, ODDin and Podium and you're willing to hammer depending on the claim? +scumpoints for you.

I'll be posting more later tonight, but wanted to say this now.

I would add oddin and teejay into this as well (teejay also expressed willingness to hammer, here). As scum, finding out peoples roles during the day is a huge benefit. So the more people you get to L-1, the better. Claims are insanely important information, more so to mafia, than to town. Both oddin and teejay asked me to claim, and i find that really suspicious... as they strike me as players that should know better. i actually consider pressing for claims when it isn't really necessary a pretty strong scumtell. teejay is now giving a different story and agreeing with myself and sawyer... but not sure i believe that he wouldnt have realized that earlier.

i would expect town to have the same reaction as sawyer did, especially after i made note of the players that were on me. and to piggyback on that, sawyers reaction really does look town. if he was scum, he could easily have said that i still looked suspicous, and given the go ahead for someone to hammer. After all, there were 3 people that thought i was scum and 2 had said they wanted to hammer. i dont see scum abandoning that opportunity.

[podium123456]

I didn't think much of Podiums rehash of the thread, as I didn't see where he was going with it. Maybe I just missed the point entirely.

Mostly to give some idea of why i was so flustered... that was a LOT of stuff hitting me from all directions at once. And to show that, while it appeared like everyone in the thread wanted me gone, there were a lot of people that justified the actions i made... they just got lost in the mix.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I was willing to hammer. I had gotten done reading a heavily heated debate between Oddin and you and was caught up in the excitement of it all.

Pertaining to getting you to claim, again, this was said in the context of a heated debate, ruled by emotion rather than logic.

Ill take this into consideration.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would like a response on this:

Now that I reread your post, my thoughts:

Typically, I see people who react the way you did after the about three votes on them, whereas you only had one.

(repeated)

So you are saying that people dont respond to a scum accusation until they have about three votes? Sorry, i dont believe that. As a matter of fact, from my experience, NOT responding to it would result in people accusing the accused of avoiding the issue.

[podium123456]

Right now, my problem players are mallow, millar, and one other that i want to finish up talking with before i say.


Millar - His input/play has been total garbage. Calling him a lurker is an insult to lurkers.

Mallow - Pretty much a perfect example of active lurking, as teejay highlighted. Adds nothing to the discussion, and jumps in to put me at L-1 with a parrot of oddin. His repeated mistakes early on give me the impression he wasn't really reading the thread like he was portraying -- and the thread hadn't gotten crazy at that point.

Also , he made an individual post criticizing millar for not posting enough to be iso'd . that post seemed out of place. sawyer's iso content was nearly identical to millar at this point, but he didnt mention it... odd that he wouldn't. also, it was a little hypocritical considering his own iso was pretty darn weak.

i'm not sure how i feel about his millar vote right now.

[podium123456]

I think we might have found scum.

Oddin, im sorry, but i simply do NOT believe what you are saying. You pushed WAY too hard for WAY too long. There's no way you would have kept going that long if it was really a ploy. Even AFTER things died down... after i explained the reasons why i shouldnt claim, and made my mega play-by-play post... you STILL continued to pressure me. You even made a post out of the blue to reiterate what '???' meant to you link. After i responded to that saying 'uhhh ok for whatever that was for', you AGAIN made your case. Uh-uh... no WAY you would have went that far if you were intentionally riding me.

You asked for a claim... TWICE. Are you kidding? Along with language that insinuated you were ready for the hammer to fall, right at the time where some bozo could have jumped in and hammered link. Townies know how precious claims are... there's NO way i believe a townie would ask me to claim twice if they didn't think i was going to be lynched. This is pretty damning in my eyes, i ask others to mull over this.

I think what happened is that i kept breaking down your case until i had you backed into a corner here. When you realized there was no way you could talk your way out of it, you came up with this fantastic story. If by some miracle you ARE town, then you really screwed yourself with that wild play.

Also, this is pretty funny:

2) I really don't like how teejay played through this. First he says he's ready to HAMMER, on page 4! But then he sees the wagon is waning and the wind is blowing elsewhere, and suddenly he buckles. Suddenly it's too early to lynch. It really looks like teejay is trying to go with what's popular.

You critcize teejay for something you are basically doing... it's just that instead of the excuses he gave, you came up with that crazy story. And dont act like just because you didnt specifically say you would hammer, that you weren't sending out similar signals. L-1 is NOT the time to fuel the fire with language like 'before we hammer'... it's the time to back off and reveal your ploy... which is all part of why i dont believe you.

UNVOTE
VOTE: ODDin

p.s. you were the mystery person i was referring to in my previous post.

[podium123456]

And basically I kept it going until everyone responded. Specifically, I wanted sawyer's and millar's responses, which only came on page 6 (last thing I said against you was on page 5). I had a specific goal I wanted to reach, I didn't stop until I reached it.

Surely you understand how this looks from someone elses perspective. It doesn't make sense that if it was a ploy, and things had died down... for you to still continue to press ME...

especially

when we had already been through the wringer. You had already made up your mind on me, and were waiting for sawyer millar (so you say) so why the unprompted post to keep arguing with me about '???'. There would be no need for that if you were only waiting to hear from millar/sawyer. It isn't logical.

As for the claim, it might have been too much, but you would be wise to notice that I wasn't the first to say ask for it. In my experience, after a claim has been asked for, it doesn't really matter how many more people ask for it - you either agree to claim or you don't.

First of all, numbers can influence players. Secondly (back to my main point) if you were town, you would have known that me claiming was the WRONG move for town at the time... even more so since you didn't want me lynched. Town reacts like sawyer did, you did exactly the opposite... twice.

By the way, I wouldn't say you've really broken my case - I was self-consistent throughout. Specifically in regards to post 125, there is only ONE post in that other discussed game which looks heated, while the rest of the argument on the same issue (why you voted somebody, I think raj) was handled by you in a way which was more or less cooler than how you talked here.

See the problem is that you made a big deal about multiple question marks. Not counting that first post, there are at least 4 other places in the thread where i used '??' or '???'. By your own definition that is bordering on hysteria.

But you know, i dont even care... i'm not interested in another oddin vs. podium show on that. I proved how the overall logic was flawed behind your conclusions, but it does no good. I dont expect you to change your tune, and I don't trust you anyway... really never have... so you can save it.

If you were to bring me some explanations that seemed logical/believable, things might be different. But you arent. As i said, if you really are town, you played exactly opposite how they should.

[podium123456]

P.S.

p.s. you were the mystery person i was referring to in my previous post.

That was pretty obvious.

I had questions open to teejay, concerning his play, when i made that comment. Could have been either of you.

P.P.S. Of course I was insinuating I was ready for the hammer to fall and sending similar signals. That was the whole idea.

More fail. If you are town, and dont feel the person at L-1 should be lynched... then you SAY something. You did exactly the opposite. You egged it on... sent out the signal. So what happens... someone holding back sees that other players are calling for the hammer, and they post and hammer.

...oh and maybe you'll rebut with that other top notch argument that you brought up earlier 'we can learn a lot from a quicklynch hammer'. Duh. The problem is that you were willing to let someone you didnt think was scum be lynched, just to see who hammered. Town doesnt do that.

[podium123456]

If what you're saying is that I should've discarded that whole effort just to prevent you from claiming - perhaps, but I still think we gained a lot of info that way.

Uhhh... yeah. I think i made this pretty clear. Whatever little scheme you were working on wouldn't take priority over an unneccessary claim. The only people that really benefit from claims are scum... as only they know the truth. You act like you were on a top secret mission for the FBI and couldnt risk blowing your cover, so you had to go along and ask for a claim. Puleahse.

But you could at lest try to understand how such a ploy should have worked in theory, in the hipothetical case it was actually there (which is what I'm claiming).

Of course a gambit could be useful... i never said that it wouldnt, or that i didnt understand the concept. The point is everything i pointed out is behavior even a gambit'ing townie wouldn't do (yes yes, imo... but still i think it would fit lots of people's opinion). Logically, and risk-wise. Anyway i'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't mine. I simply dont buy it. And if you are town, i think you should rethink your gambit'ing strategy.

I would like to hear others thoughts on it... we've stolen enough of the show.

[podium123456]

I do think that ODDin was legit when he said he didn't intend on lynching you Podium. I feel that he is town with the way that he posts. I still think that Podium could be scum.

No offense, but based on your input here (as well as your own admission that you are poor at scumhunting) i'm not going to put much stock into your analysis of things. Especially when what i am talking about requires a good grasp of town/scum gameplay... to be able to cut through what's presented on the surface, and analyze the underlying motivations.

I would like to here (in your own words) the reasons you think i am scum.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

will add more later, once i have some more time

[podium123456]

TJ, why wont you answer the question i asked you in post 138? This is the third time i have had to ask you to answer it.

[podium123456]

I am not saying that people should ignore accusations. I never said that nor would I. What I am saying is that most people would not react the

way

you did.

The only thing i did was respond to the accusation (like you said is acceptable), and place a vote. (other players have said the vote/reaction was justified/normal).

I will admit it is a little unusual to have serious votes/accusations on the second page of a game, so i understand your first impression that i was moving too quickly. But my point is that if you break down everything i did, my reaction wasn't particularly noteworthy/suspicious.

[podium123456]

Actually, your initial accusation was that i got defensive too quick... not that it was too defensive. Later, you once described it as over reacting.

Regardless, I repeat: I responded to the accusation (which you said was understandable), and placed a vote based on the scumminess of his actions. What part of that was too defensive?

[podium123456]

Thanks for stepping in taz! Ill warn you that the thread gets a little crazy and text heavy for a few pages, but it calms down afterwards. and even though some of my posts are walls, i try to make them easy to understand/read.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would like to, however this game for me just seems to be ODDin vs Podium vs TeeJay

that's because there's only 7 people... 1 of which was a heavy lurker, and 1 who is V/LA... that only leaves sawyer... who lurked at first, but is contributing lightly now.

(from everyone else's point of view, there were 2 lurkers... you and millar)

there aren't a lot of players in this game, which means it will feel a little different than your usual 9+ player game... and we have to be careful... a mislynch today means lylo tomorrow.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Right now, im starting to get a gut feeling that mallow might be a genuine new/bad townie. I really would like to see some more detailed analysis mallow.

[podium123456]

@mallow - did you play on epicmafia? i am boxybrown over there... but i havent played regularly in a while. it is different, because most games start at night over there, and most start at day here. i prefer a night start. also, yeah most games are open... i like that better as well... that's why i tried a game here in the open forum.

i dont know why you still feel so new after 5 games, though. that seems like more than enough to get the feel of things on this forum. especially for the type of things you are talking about.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

i'll be giving some more analysis later on today. glad to see gonnano back in the game. from my POV right now (and before i re-read things), i see oddin or teejay as lynch choices.

[podium123456]

briefly though, concerning gonnano's vote post (since it only took a second to investigate):

That's kind of a weak post/vote, man. First of all... sawyer said it

sounded

like a contradiction... and i agree.

Secondly... and more so... about the 'has done nothing about his scum reads'. Uhhhh... do you realize that the same could be said about you at the time you made the accusation? How can you justify making that comment?

[podium123456]

By "he has done nothing about his scum reads" I meant that he made accusations but no votes, which I don't like.

my point still stands... neither had you at that point.

as a matter of fact... (disregarding RVS votes) he

had

placed a vote on a suspicious read (me) earlier in the game... while

you

hadn't placed a vote on anyone.

i ask again, how can you justify that accusation?

[podium123456]

I actually did put down a vote on you earlier, but it reverted back to my RVS vote after the mod went back to edit things. The reason that I didn't vote you again was because it would have been a hammer, we hadn't heard from millar yet, we hadn't heard from Sawyer yet, and we hadn't gotten a claim from you yet.

None of Sawyer's suspects are that close to a lynch, but he still doesn't think that they're scummy enough to vote for.

you are absolutely right, i had forgotten that you had voted me. i've thrown that aspect out, now.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

im starting over:

I like even less that he has done nothing about his scum reads at this point, when we should be getting into the real meat of the game.

This is kind of hypocritical... but you had been V/LA... so i wont say that it 100% is.

But how in the world can you vote Sawyer for 'not doing anything about his scum reads', when mallow is in the same boat? The difference is that sawyer is actually trying to scumhunt. I dont understand how you can vote him on such a weak case, especially when there is so much other information in the thread.

Why are you dinging sawyer, and not mallow?

By "he has done nothing about his scum reads" I meant that he made accusations but no votes, which I don't like.

He made a vote earlier.

[podium123456]

i'd much prefer lynching oddin over teejay. teejays explanation is weak and it could be a lie... but oddins explanation simply doesn't add up. if he's smart enough to attempt a gambit like that, then he is smart enough to have known not to press me for a claim. saying 'oh i couldnt say 'no dont claim' because it would have ruined my ploy' is bs... at the very least, he could have said nothing. But hell, he asked TWICE. put yourself in the shoes of a gambiting townie in that situation at L-1... would you ask for a claim twice, when you didnt believe the candidate was going to be lynched? It's only because of my personality that i refused... many people would have caved on the first request. Oddin was claim requests #2 and 3... that's a lot of pressure to claim.

nor do i believe his reason for continuing to press me as long as he did.

also, a lot of the stuff he is accusing teejay of doing is pretty darn close to what he did... and he tells TJ 'i dont believe you' to some of TJ's explanations all the while expecting us to believe his explanation (that is just as unbelievable)

anyway, i'm not sure that interrogating those two anymore is going to uncover much more that what we have... so it's kind of a toss up for me. i am not against a teejay lynch, but i am still campaigning for oddin.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

also, mallow is looking increasingly suspicious.

#208 is an absolutely ridiculous post. First of all, it's ultra hypocritical for him to say that, based on his entire post history... but

especially

considering the one just prior to 208 link. wtf man?

Secondly... sawyer basically said he was going to vote TJ, he was just waiting on a vote count... so it doesn't even make sense for mallow to ask him to make up his mind. If a single post can ever be justification for a lynch, that one has to be close.

He's pretty much a mess at this point. excessive (and illogical) AtE, hypocrisy, active lurking, putting me at L-1 without hardly commenting (what little he did comment was someone elses observation), ... the list goes on.

matter of fact... the more i think about him, the more i think he has done enough to deserve a lynch.

[podium123456]

(and it's not the same explanation, it's a completely different one.)

Yeah, but my point is to consider it from our perspective. You're asking us to believe something that is just as sketchy as what you aren't willing to believe.

More to the point: why didn't you answer my question in post 209?

mostly what happened after my performance died down. his explanations of why he wanted to get a claim/vote are weak. doesnt make sense for him to say i look scummy, and then later say he didn't consider me suspicious until some time after that comment. i believe when he said that he wanted to hammer, but wanted to wait for sawyer to post... that his mind was made up to hammer me regardless of what they added.

he has a lot of little scummy actions, and you have a few big ones.

[podium123456]

i dont really have much to add at this point. looks like oddin will make it past today. mallow remains on his downward slide. gonnano voting sawyer is a joke. ummm... that's about it from my pov.

teejay should probably go ahead and claim at this point.

[podium123456]

It's a subtle difference, but Sawyer uses it as a basis to leave out parts of TJ's posts and construct a contradiction that wasn't there to begin with.

I disagree. It does sound like a contradiction. But the language is so general/vague that it really can't be proved or disproved.

[podium123456]

taz, you're acting like a spaz.

[podium123456]

It does sound like a contradiction. But

I'm not really concerned about whether it was actually a contradiction or not, even though personally I would say not. Mainly my point is that Sawyer tried to use it as an example of scumminess, and used a misrep to help his accusation. I quoted you because you did what Sawyer did not do, which was to acknowledge the fact that it is not a proven, 100% guaranteed contradiction.

Sawyer said it sounded like a contradiction.

In your vote-post, you said you saw absolutely no contradiction.

I criticized your vote-post as being weak... because (in addition to the other point) saying there was 'absolutely no' contradiction, was about as accurate as sawyer saying there 'absolutely was' a contradiction (which he hadn't at that point). That is why i said your vote-post was weak.

[podium123456]

At the time that I said that there was absolutely no contradiction, the two statements that I had seen from TJ were that he felt that he needed to at least think about it before hammering, and that he wanted to wait for others to post. These two items are not mutually exclusive, so there was absolutely no contradiction present. Later, TJ went back and got very specific and started making a lot less sense.

You're describing it inaccurately. And the more i disect it, the more it does look like a contradiction. But it relies on very specific language.

TJ said that he wanted to hammer, but wanted to let 2 people post before he did so. Later, he said he didn't hammer because he needed to think about it more.

In his initial comment, he didn't say he needed time to think before he hammered... he only said that he wanted to wait for others to post. This is why it sounded like a contradiction, and why i took issue with you saying it 'absolutely was not' a contradiction.

Now...

Later TJ clarifies that he wasn't waiting for other players opinions to influence his decision when he said 'i want them to post first (before i hammer)'. So if he wasn't going to use their input to influence his decision, his initial comment shows NO evidence of someone who is still unsure about his actions... in fact, it shows the opposite. It becomes more solid of a contradiction at this point.

TJ's only counter would be 'i wasn't sure and still needed to think about it, i just didnt say so'... but there's no way for us to know the truth... and based on the context it doesnt seem very plausible.

[podium123456]

I hope you're not banking on the idea that I'm going to change my vote, gonnano.

that's a good joke.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We haven't had a votecount in like 4 pages... i think it's 3 oddin, 3 TJ, and mallow not voting.

Sawyer, are you set in stone with TJ?

[podium123456]

taz you fail so hard.

[podium123456]

this freaking sucks.

i looked at your profile taz... how can you have over 1000 posts and still act like such a numbskull? you certainly don't need to be in SIX games at once... at least until your gameplay improves. when you replace into a game, you have a responsibility to commit to the game... it isn't fair to the other players if you pop in, mess things up, and then pop out... leaving us to deal with the fallout. it also makes it more difficult to find another replacement.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

that's actually a good strategy oddin... intentionally look scummy as a pr. you definitely succeeded... but your plan got torpedoed by a quick hammer. tis a shame.

[podium123456]

It's not the hammer that ruined my plan, it was my poor execution. Even if he'd said "I want to hammer you, please claim", I would've needed to claim, and for a doctor to claim basically means certain death.

i dont think your execution was all that poor... it's a very tricky thing to pull off... the fact that we only needed 4 to lynch made it even more tricky. as i said, your goal was to look scummy... and you did. did you overdo it? maybe slightly... but not enough to call it a 'poor execution' IMO. would we have believed your story? with no other protecting role, id say there would have been a decent chance -- although it's impossible to predict that.

If sawyer had said he was staying on TJ, then i would have hammered TJ without you having to claim. at the least, if you

had

claimed (and IF we decided to not lynch you), we could have had a shot at lynching a mafia... even though you would have died tonight. that's speculation... but still...

anyway... it's all part of the game. we still have a PR, and it's only N1... the game is far from over.

taz is still going to get a monster wedgie anytime i see him.

[podium123456]

gonnano, as i pointed out yesterday, your sawyer case is pretty weak.

right now my list is

townish: sawyer
nullish: gonnano
scummish: orachi(mallow), teejay

[podium123456]

Podium asked millar if his vote was serious and summed it up as "weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out" for his reasons for voting. I feel that what he said was accurate, so do you disagree that millars vote was that of how Podium described it? If so, why?

I felt like millar's vote was still an RVS-type vote (i.e. weak), which didn't seem especially scummy to me -- maybe counterproductive, but not necessarily scummy. I definitely didn't think that it warranted the response that podium gave it. So... weak, yes. Not well thought out, maybe. Incorrect, though, is an accusation that I don't think can be made of any vote until the recipient of the vote is dead and confirmed.

Incorrect was referring to his incorrect statement that i almost killed the game... not that he was incorrect in calling me scum.

So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.

[podium123456]

At this point you say there is a contradiction, which there absolutely is not. Every statement made up to this point could be true at the same time as every other statement, which means that he has not contradicted himself.

Are you telling me that:

"I would very much like to hammer, but i want to give these other guys time to post before i do"

and

"I dont want to place my vote on podium because it will hammer him, i still need to think about it"

leave you with the

exact

same impression of how prepared he was to hammer? Yes or no?

The contradiction isnt about some literal contradiction within his text... it's about how prepared he was to hammer when he made the first statement.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also, i just realized that the full context of the discussion between teejay and oddin gives even more credence to the case that he is contradicting himself.

Also, teejay, you said you don't want to vote until you're sure.

Are you still not sure

? (Not trying to convince you either way, just asking.) Do you think we're ready to lynch?

Oddin

specifically

asked if he was still not sure if he should place a vote on me. In answering, teejay said NOTHING about not being sure... even though he was JUST ASKED. Instead he says he would very much like to hammer.

If someone asked you if you were still unsure about voting... and you were... would you say 'i still need time to think' or 'i very much would like to hammer'. Obviously, you would say 'i still need time to think'. Teejay didn't.

The only thing that keeps this from being a proven contradiction is teejays 'promise' that he was still unsure even though he didn't say so (and implied the opposite). The more this is broken down, the more laughable it is to say that it doesn't appear to be a contradiction, IMO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NOTE: I am not necessarily stating that what teejay did here

is

or

is not

indicative of him being scum. I am showing that i feel sawyer is justified and accurate in the case that he has made against teejay, and that i dont feel that gonnano is justified and accurate about the case he is making against sawyer.

[podium123456]

So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.

Not in the sense that I personally regard the vote as ridiculous (considering how little information was available at that point), but I can see how you might view it that way. Regardless, I was and am more interested in the intensity of your response, which I considered excessive.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

BTW, i regarded the vote as ridiculous as well... which is why i placed a vote on him. He used a ridiculous reason to place a serious vote.

Both of the statements that were initially called contradictory say that podium was willing to hammer, but only after he waited a little bit. So yes, they give me the same impression of his willingness to hammer.

Well, obviously... but that isn't the point. Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.

Further shown by bringing in the context of Oddins initial question, as i did.

What we should be doing is deciding whether or not the (non-contradictory) story is believable.

Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?

[podium123456]

Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.

Are the reasons for not hammering logically incompatible? No.

Yes they are. As evidenced by the fact that he

specifically

said that other peoples opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer. The revelation of that information is what i said made it look like a more solid contradiction -- even though it already sounded like a contradiction. This was explained a long time ago... now i re-explained it in detail by asking you questions which broke down your logic step by step.

Let me guess... you're still going to deny it.

Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?

It's not a contradiction, and the sooner everyone gets past that and starts looking at believability, the better off we are.

Hah. The truth is actually the opposite. You're the only person that is saying it isn't, btw.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

Nice try, but rehashing another D1 argument isn't going to help matters.

Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it? Because you just said it was

still

something you were considering against me. Don't tell me that i am not allowed to defend myself... especially when you made no comment after i responded to the first time you made the accusation, here.

There was no over-reaction there... hell, you just AGREED with everything i listed in that post as a reason for my voting him.

[podium123456]

The first one is an admitted play weakness of mine that translates pretty badly to replacing into games. I tend not to have the best eye for things as an outside observer.

I think that's a pretty common thing. It's very tough to replace into a game and be as interested/connected to it as if you had been playing from the start. I run into the same thing every time i look up meta on someone... after like the first two pages i say 'man this is boring' and stop. haha. I feel like i should replace into games more, because it really is helpful to the site... but so far i haven't been able to do it for fear of not giving a damn about the game once i get in.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@ everyone.

Id say right now my strongest scumpick is teejay... followed by orochi (mallow). i question gonnano's cases against myself and sawyer... but (right now) i just dont feel that mafia would be trying to build a case on sawyer when teejay is such low hanging fruit. could be wrong, of course... he might be doing it for just that reason... still, i dunno.

[podium123456]

So even though it's not changing his decision of whether or not he is going to hammer, it does influence

when

he is willing to hammer. So it's still a reason for him to wait, even though it (supposedly) isn't affecting his final decision.

Wow dude... of course it's a

reason

to wait... like i said earlier. That isn't the point.

The point is that the first time he says the only reason he isn't hammering is to give them time to post, then later he says he didn't hammer because he was also still unsure if he should or not.

Now, since neither you nor I can read his mind, we have to try and determine if he is lying or not. How do we do that? We examine the context/tone of his language when he made the statement. The context/tone of his language aren't indicative of someone who is unsure if he should vote... in fact, they are the OPPOSITE. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that he is lying.

For some reason you are disregarding all the evidence that shows he was acting/talking like someone who's mind was made up when he made the statement, and instead, you are saying 'oh well he never specifically said his mind was made up... so there is no proof of that and you cant form any other opinions no matter what the evidence shows'.

Your argument is along the same lines of if teejay said 'i didn't hammer him because aliens landed and unplugged my cable modem'... and we say 'thats funny, you didnt mention that before... we think you are lying' and you go 'oh but he never said they

didn't

land, so you can't accuse him of lying'.

He gives this valid reason to wait, but unfortunately he forgets to specifically state each reason for waiting in that post, leading to accusations of a contradiction when he later says that there was another reason to wait.

It's not about stating each reason... there was only ONE reason, and he gave it. In his first statement, his language clearly implies that he is going to hammer after he gives those people the courtesy of posting. He shows NO sign of doubt about hammering, even though he was JUST asked if he still has doubt. None. In fact, he shows the OPPOSITE... that he is ready.

His language is indicative of someone who's mind is made up... therefore when he later says he was still unsure, it appears to be a contradiction.

Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it?

I stated my opinion, and your response was your defense. There's not much more for me to say.[/quote]

If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted. It was not excessive.

[podium123456]

It's fine to say that he's lying, but even in the alien example you can't accuse him of contradicting himself. Lying and contradiction are not the same thing. For example, if I told you that I have seven eyes I would be lying, but unless I had told you earlier that I didn't have seven eyes there would still be no contradiction. Even if you assumed that I had only two eyes, there is no contradiction unless I actually made two contradictory statements.

You keep sidestepping the big points. His statement implied that there was only

one

thing that prevented him from hammering... 2 people posting. Your argument would be valid if he had said 'i'll probably hammer in a little bit' or something... what he said was 'i'm hammering after these 2 people post'.

In addition to that, he was responding to someone that asked if he was unsure.... not only does he

not

say that he is still unsure, he says that he is going to hammer once those people post.

When you consider those 2 points, he conveys the attitude of someone who's mind is made up. Therefore, when he later says he was still undecided, it contradicts the impression he conveyed earlier.

If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted.

Only objective statements can be refuted. In a subjective argument like whether or not you were excessive, both sides can be presented and then it is up to each person to draw their own conclusions.

Yes, it's a debate, and people present arguments/explanations. If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.

You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.

[podium123456]

1: I don't mind putting myself under scrutiny here, so since most of you were harbouring suspicions about my playerslot, what case, in your own words, would you make against me? The hope is that I can settle some doubts and get myself into the game at the same time, so I figure this is a good way for me to be productive.

2: Were you surprised by who was NKed during the night? Do you think Taz/Equinox would have been a major target for you during this day phase had they lived, given the nature of the hammer D1?

3: Looking at the person you're most suspicious of, who makes sense as a scum partner for them?

I'm trying to get a grasp of everyone's big picture assessment at this point.

1. Most of my concern regarding mallow was summed up here. Excessive and illogical AtE referred to how he was claiming being new as a reason for some of his erratic/poor behavior... even though he wasn't that new.

2. Yes, i was surprised. The only reason i can see is that they knew that the backup doctor more than likely wouldnt be on taz, so they went for it.

3. Hmmm... that's actually interesting, because i havent looked at the remaining list and thought about the fact that there are 2 scum in it. It's actually troubling to me. It could be gonnano and sawyer... with gonnano bussing sawyer. Gonnano and teejay is a strong possibility, of course. As well as any combination of you, gonnano, teejay. Sawyer has appeared town to me... but that's only because he hasn't made any mistakes and is saying what a townie should. Tough to say, overall.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.

[podium123456]

His statement implied

As I said before, you can't include your assumptions in determining whether or not there was a contradiction.

Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?

I feel the context and tone of his language establish

quite

clearly that his mind was made up when he made that statement. To behave in the way he did, and still be unsure about the vote, it would require logic that was stretched to the max.

The context/tone of his language clearly show that the attitude he conveyed at the end, contradicts his earlier attitude in regards to whether or not his mind was made up.

If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.

Or maybe it's because I don't think that your response did any significant damage to my original case, so I am satisfied with leaving the arguments the way they are and letting everyone else decide.

You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.

Any early-game vote is going to be weak. That doesn't mean that they deserve a response as aggressive as the one that you gave millar.

You agreed with nearly 100% of my response. Explain what was so aggressive about it.

(note that you have never explained anything... all you have said is 'it was too aggressive'... which is vague)

Agreed. (see my post # 330)
I'd be willing to start a popcorn claim if everyone is on board.

If one other person agrees, then just start claiming.

[podium123456]

Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?

Says the meaning of the word contradiction. If you are trying to find somewhere that he has contradicted or "spoken against" himself, you can only deal with his actual statements, otherwise you only find places where his statements conflict with your original assumptions. This is not to say that your assumptions are unreasonable or baseless, only that they aren't statements coming from TJ.

You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?

Well, instead of trying to figure out why millar thought it was enough of a reason to vote or trying to gain some information from him, you went straight to the offensive,

As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.

(1)basically saying that he must be an idiot to not realize that the first person the mod noticed quoting from an ongoing game wasn't actually the first one to do it. (2)Then you imply that the only option other than what you did would have been to vote for yourself, a huge exaggeration that as far as I can tell was meant to belittle millar and helped the town not at all.

You are misrepresenting/exaggerating.

1. I didn't call him an idiot, i informed him why his first statement was 100% inaccurate.

2. That was obviously a rhetorical question to show how bad the logic was behind his second statement.

Then, you top it all off with a vote that is based on two sentences from millar, a case that is at least as weak as the one that he made on you.

You agreed with every reason i listed. Are you telling me that i am prohibited from placing a vote on someone based on valid reasons? His case was MUCH weaker than mine... why did you overlook what he did to put pressure on me?

Here is the explanation I'm talking about, since podium didn't see it the first time (yet responded somehow):

it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"

I saw this... but it is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

[podium123456]

You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?

It's fine to do that but you can't pretend that your inferences have the same status as a direct statement from the actual person in question.

Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.

Case closed.

As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.

Straight to the offensive meaning in this case that as soon as you had verified that the vote wasn't an accident or a joke you went for millar's throat. It's a good thing that you did bother to check first, but that's not really an impressive attempt at trying to get information from the vote. There's still a whole lot of middle ground that you skipped over.

A. What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.

B. Since when are people

required

to interrogate others before they can place a vote? So anyone that places a vote without 'trying to get information from it' first, is acting overly aggressive?

miller's case was weak, and I agree with many of your criticisms of it to some degree. I don't see how that is supposed to keep me from seeing that the same arguments can be applied to your vote.

Technically you agreed with

all

of them to some degree.

And the logic behind what you are doing doesn't make sense. If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.

[podium123456]

You're one of those people that can never admit when they are wrong, eh? It's cool.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.

Case closed.

Not quite. Attitudes are based on inferences, therefore they can't be treated as actual statements from the person who supposedly had that attitude, therefore they can't be used to prove a contradiction. It's fine to compare/contrast the attitudes that you infer, but no matter how believable it is it's still based on guesses and can't be used to establish something as solid as a flat-out contradiction.

Everything you said is irrelevant. If you agree that i can compare/contrast attitudes, and i determine that the attitudes he presented are not the same, then by definition they contradict each other.

He didn't present the attitude of someone who's mind wasn't made up, no matter how much you try and deny it. Give it up.

What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.

You could have tried to find out

why

he voted for you over me based on the reason that he told you, or you could have asked him for some examples of places where you disputed something too much, etc. These are just off the top of my head but you get the idea.

Well, of course you can come up with something that could have been asked... duh.

I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me. Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further? ???

Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated

some

before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.

Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.

If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.

Considering that your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar),incorrect (he was town), and not well thought out (a judgment call, but I don't think that the approach you took with your response/vote was anywhere close to the best path), I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.

Sigh. You are so desperate to keep from having to say you might be wrong, that you start using horrible logic to try and prove your point.

incorrect (he was town)

Are you REALLY using that as support for your argument? Really? It is a TOTALLY different situation than when i used the term to describe what he did that was incorrect. Give me a break... you are really stretching for anything here. That is an illogical reason to criticize me, and you are an amateur for using it.

your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar)

More fail logic. IT WAS THE SECOND PAGE. What in the hell did you expect? It was a LEGITIMATE case, unlike his WEAK/INCORRECT case.

I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.

Yeah. Except for the fact that my case ACCURATELY DESCRIBES HIS ACTIONS as weak/incorrect/not well thought out, and his IS weak/incorrect/not well thought out. So, actually they are COMPLETE OPPOSITES.

Do you understand that if his case IS weak/incorrect/not well though out, then you can't say that my case is weak/incorrect/not well thought out? Do you really not get this? You are calling a case that is 100% accurate weak/incorrect/not well thought out.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But peep this, this is the icing on the cake.

You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???

Srsly dude, what are you thinking?

Even if

you wanted to dance around and make some technical/semantic/subjective argument about how you think my vote is weak/not well thought out... you have LESS of a case than what i used in my case against millar.

And that's not counting your hypocrisy about 'being so quick to go for the throat'.

Your move, chief.

[podium123456]

teejay, you think we should mass claim? if you do, then go ahead and start.

[podium123456]

gonnano and i believe that mass claim is our best move here. if one other person agrees, then it is a majority and we will do it.

Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.

[podium123456]

Sure. Fine. Whatever. If you want to make a guess about TJ's attitude at different points and then say that he has contradicted himself based on your guesses, go ahead.

Yeah, well... since this is a game based on lying, inferring attitudes is kind of a required element. He didn't display the attitude of someone who was still unsure about their vote, and you know it.

Ignore the fact that the things that he

actually said

all fit together.

Things fitting together, and attitudes present while saying them, are two different things. Any scum can easily craft their language so that it 'all fits together'... however attitudes are more of a challenge.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me.

You're not required to act townie at all. But without some sort of investigation, it looks like an OMGUS vote.

This doesn't surprise me... you are shifting the argument because i showed that you were more guilty of what you accused me of than i was. You have never mentioned OMGUS until just now... conveniently after i showed that your original point was hypocritical/bogus.

Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further?

Discussing the situation doesn't

have

to happen before the vote, but if all you've got to go off of are two sentences some discussion would be nice.

This has nothing to do with what i asked. You have said that by voting him i 'skipped over middle ground' and 'didnt try to get information about the vote'... i ask again, why does my placing a vote mean that none of that discussion will take place?

Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated some before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.

I feel like my information was considerably more solid than "Millar's stupid vote millar".

Again you shift the argument. The quality of the case had nothing to do with that particular criticism that you made... until i showed it was a bogus criticism, of course. It was the criticism that instead of having a dialogue with millar about my case, i went 'straight to the offensive' with a vote. You did the same thing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.

Care to reconcile that with this?

What was i supposed to do? Not try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand?

What should i have done?? Agreed with him??

???

What does the first statement have to do with what you quoted? Those are rhetorical questions made to highlight the poor logic of whatever i was referring to. Do you not understand that?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???

Lol, that's sort of the point. But thanks for going through and showing how my "case" on you is crap, because it's essentially the same case you made against millar.

*facepalm*

You just admitted that your case on me is crap. (except that there is a difference between my case and yours... mine was accurate, yours isn't... as i explained earlier)

Also understand that i have never proclaimed that my case on him was rock solid mega super. What i have done is argue that my activity was not excessive, as well as show that your case on me is comparatively weaker than mine on millar (with poor logic, you could say that they are at best equal).

I'm sorry that the "incorrect" part I used was more solid than the "incorrect" part that you used, but I couldn't find an exact match.

Wow. You are comparing an apple to an elephant. My incorrect point referred to something i had been accused of that was known to be 100% false. Your incorrect point refers to something that no one had any knowledge of at the time i made the statements you are criticizing.

You're saying 'one of the reasons you might be scum is because you thought somebody was mafia, and it turned out they weren't'... which is absolutely ridiculous.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I tried to end it earlier, but Sawyer and podium didn't like that so I'm back in the saddle again.

You're just as guilty of furthering this discussion as i am.

We're down to one last little piece about how podium's inferences are as good as a flat-out statement from the player that he's inferencing about, and as soon as that's gone I'll have proved my point.

You can't prove something you're wrong about. You're biggest problem is that you have several points mixed up/intertwined... in addition to being wrong about several other things.

[podium123456]

Also, this contradiction argument is just bugging me, all I'm reading at this point is a couple of guys looking for every dropped word to pick on without it really making any headway into being a convincing case on each other, it's distracting.

The base of it is that i feel that teejays attitudes contradict each other, and gonnano feels that it is impossible to determine that. If there is a contradiction, then it means his case on sawyer pretty much falls apart. What's the consequence of that? Not much, really. If there isn't a contradiction, then his case on sawyer has merit. What's the consequence of that? Not much, really.

Still, i feel that attitudes are able to be inferred/compared/contrasted... and so does he. By definition, then, it would be valid to say that two attitudes contradict each other, if the situation dictates. He just refuses to actually say it. At this point, it's basically just an argument between two people that like to argue... but that's part of mafia.

And as far as the claim goes... I'm on the fence with it, my standard MO is to avoid claiming unless absolutely necessary, so it's generally against my sensibilites, but I'll go with it if there's enough support.

The reasoning is that if the nurse claims, we get a clear today... which can improve our chances of lynching scum today. Due to the fact that the protecting role is kind of a dice roll at night, they really aren't that important to us in that aspect.

If we dont claim, and take someone to L-1, we risk the possibility of scum faking nurse. Then we would be left to choose between the two claims, and have to pick correctly to continue... a 50/50 chance of hitting scum with nobody clear. If nurse claims now, before anyone is at L-1, it is less likely that scum will counterclaim and we would have a 50/50 chance of hitting scum while knowing a clear.

I could go either way, i guess... i wish sawyer would return and weigh in on it.

[podium123456]

The question is whether or not we should actually have the nurse claim. If the nurse does that, they are dead come night fall.

That is somewhat canceled out by the fact that the nurses ability really isn't that big of a help to town... it's pretty much a roll of the dice if she/he were to protect the person that mafia decided to hit.

The role is more useful to us as a clear during the day, than as a nurse at night. Since this is lylo, it might be best to make use of it now.

As an aside, perhaps the best way to play this setup would be to have doc claim early, have nurse protect doc, and then force mafia to nurse hunt.

[podium123456]

yeah i forgot that nurse has no powers until doc dies.

i hate setups that have no investigative roles, and only protective roles... for town it's like having a mustang with a V6 engine (instead of a V8)... useful, but just barely.

[podium123456]

this game is going nowhere. where is sawyer? teejay/orochno are you guys against mass claim?

[podium123456]

Nope, you finally convinced me. Sorry for all of your time that I wasted.

Great, so why did this argument continue for another page? (hence why my post is so short)

Uhhh... he was being sarcastic.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VT here.

[podium123456]

yeah this is tricky. perhaps we should just take the safe route and lynch gonnano today.

[podium123456]

this is pretty tough... they each are pretty much equal in scumminess to me. mallows play was pretty bad, and teejay had the contradiction and asking for claims. i did ISO's and it didnt help. i'll probably try to reread the thread again and see if i can make a decision.

[podium123456]

perhaps we should just take the safe route and lynch gonnano today.

what was scummy about me again?

pressing me to claim and expressing willingness to hammer on page 3 (or 4).

going after sawyer with a very weak case.

1. TJ said who he protected in his claim post, while orochi didn't. Since scum would be making up a story, they would be more likely to leave this out than someone who actually had a protect and used it.

Nah, i dont believe this... scum would be ready to go with all that stuff. Your 2nd point is valid, though.

[podium123456]

we havent had a votecount today, but by my count there is only one vote on teejay from orochi.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ugh. I reread the thread... still is very very tough. Mallow and gonnano shot back and forth at each other during RVS. Mallow acted pretty erratic/scummy D1, but so did TJ. TJ pointed out mallow's scumminess, and voted him D1.

Gonnano went for sawyer instead of the more obvious TJ (IMO)... and TJ defended sawyer while criticizing gonnano. Although gonnano was also hesitant to go after mallow, as well. Gonnano is implying that he believes TJ with his 1.2.3. post.

Sigh... i dunno. I think i would still like to vote for TJ at this point.

[podium123456]

That was the dumbest scum move I have ever seen!

actually, it wasn't that dumb. if they hadn't counter claimed u, then one of the biggest scum suspects in the game (you) gets cleared automatically. why not counterclaim and take the chance that your prior scumminess will end the game now?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am very suspicious of how sawyer jumped off and back on teejay just now... that is out of character based on my experience with him in this game. it twirks my ears even more that he cites jenn's case on TJ as a reason he is switching back to TJ... im not sure that jens case should mean that much, since she would say anything to avoid lynch.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Then we have gonnano not hammering TJ. That means that gonnano=scum and TJ=town in this game is not possible. So either gonnano and TJ are partners, or gonnano is town.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

thinking

[podium123456]

He won't be NK'd, as Mafia don't suicide.

This is an odd statement, considering the circumstances. Why did you say it?

[podium123456]

Podium, I know that you are suspicious of me because of the last game.

No, i'm not. All of your AtE and stating the obvious i find suspicious, however.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ok. It's pretty much a coin toss between jenn and TJ, as far as scumminess. So, i pull back and examine the interactions/play of gonnano and sawyer. In looking at that, i am faced with a choice between scummy actions by gonnano, and a growing gut suspicion of sawyer. I feel my best bet is to act on the actions, instead of my gut. If i'm wrong, then i'm wrong.

Besides the other little things here and there that gonnano has done, i just dont see town going after sawyer when there were more appealing choices, along with the fact that sawyer didn't really do anything scummy (besides the disputed accusation that gonnano made). I just dont see how after all that has been said and done in this game, he singles out ONE subjective action, and tries to lynch someone based off of it.

So, if gonnano is scum... that means TJ is as well.

I guess i will leave the opportunity for TJ (or gonnano) to say something before i hammer. I'll hammer tomorrow if neither speaks up.

[podium123456]

Dude, Podium, the game is so close to being a complete loss, to vote for me because of Gonanno and his obvious buddying attempts is aggravating.
Gonanno's actions are highly indicative of scum trying to buddy up with town. Add to this the fact that he has tunneled on Sawyer, and you got

obvious scum

. Yet he is not my partner but Jenns.

TJ... you are trying to convince me that gonnano is scum... if gonnano is scum and the game is still going, it means you are his partner...

[podium123456]

Where in the world do you get your ideas.

If gonnano is scum, he would have hammered you for the win. From your POV... if you really are town.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

i'll make a decision tomorrow

[podium123456]

And Podium, you did reference the other game earlier when you said I would say anything to avoid being lynched.

That wasn't a reference to the other game... that was a general observation about anyone in your situation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ok, so it's either gonnano and TJ, or sawyer and jenni.

Gonnano keeps talking about how TJ claimed first, so that is a big town tell. I disagree... scum would have discussed claiming nurse, and if TJ is scum, he would be the one to claim. Going first looks town, so scum claiming first isn't a big surprise.

TJ has been pushing for gonnano as scum... which doesn't even make sense... because if gonnano is scum, and TJ isnt, the game would be over. I would think if he was really town, he would realize this... especially when i have explained it previously.

anyway...

Unvote
Vote: TeeJay

[podium123456]

TJ has been pushing for gonnano as scum... which doesn't even make sense... because if gonnano is scum, and TJ isnt, the game would be over. I would think if he was really town, he would realize this... especially when i have explained it previously.

It wasn't hard to understand what you were saying, so if we lynched right, I'll assume he was just trying to bus Gonnano.

yeah, i took it as TJ scum trying to buss his partner... and not really thinking about the logic from the POV if he was town.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but... i think you should know whether or not we lynched right. it IS either TJ/gonnano, or sawyer/jenni (pretty sure i am right with that). So if you aren't scum, i think town wins.

[podium123456]

To expand:

I'm clear, because i could have hammered either for the win.

If it was sawyer/TJ, sawyer would have hammered jenn.
If it was sawyer/Jenn, sawyer would have said GG on my teejay hammer.

If it was gonnano/jenn, gonnano would have hammered TJ.
That only leaves gonnano/TJ as a scum team.

The only exception is if sawyer is scum and is playing innocent until the mod reveals the truth.

*suspense*

[podium123456]

VOTE: Gonnano

[podium123456]

Kind of a dick move imo, sawyer. You should have just ended the game when jenn had 2 votes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GG everyone

[podium123456]

I didn't realize she was at L-1 until after you hammered. We hadn't had a votecount for a while and I didn't catch when TJ voted her.

ah, yeah. come to think of it, i dont think we had a votecount the entire last day...

[podium123456]

Podium, I have to say if I were you I would have made the same mistake.

Well... technically it was over when gonnano voted jenniwren, it was just prolonged a bit because sawyer wasn't paying attention to the votecount.

Had gonnano voted you, it would have still been a tough game for town to win in lylo. Sawyers behavior after we all claimed raised my attention a good bit, but his earlier play was pretty much mistake/susp. free. I'm always wary of players that haven't done anything scummy, but it's tough to say if that gut feeling would have over ridden gonnano's overall play.

[podium123456]

And BTW, I'm sure it makes you feel a little easier about your day 1 "scuminess" seeing as how I was attempting to get a noose built for you. You played good.

Hahah, yeah... i was pretty damn frazzled at the end of that. And yeah, i'm glad to see that you and oddin were scum motivated (oddin trying to look scummy)... cause then i can understand why you guys were riding me so hard.