Open 238: Trendy and Subversive Game Over

[gonnano]

Unfortunately I will be V/LA August 1-9, with the possibility of getting back the 8th or maybe even the 7th. I didn't really think about it beforehand, but if this is too long to be out I just wanted everyone to be aware so that I can be replaced if necessary.

In hopeful anticipation of not being replaced, I will VOTE: mallow for being the only one that I've played with before.

EBWOPreview: Sweet, a bandwagon

V/LA announcement noted

[gonnano]

try again, mallow

[gonnano]

Oh, well in that case

Vote Mallow Again

My role says I am allowed to vote, but doesn't specify a limit... I think this game might be broken

[gonnano]

WAKE UP I JUST BROKE THE GAME

But seriously, Night starts are kind of a bummer -- you wait a week for the game to fill up, wait a few days to find out what happened Night 0, then find out that you're dead. Rinse and Repeat.

[gonnano]

at the same time? I meant that I was placing two separate votes on mallow. I would like to apologize for my terrible attempt at humor.

[gonnano]

FoS: TeeJay

for being so quick to clear Sawyer.

[gonnano]

what would you do to get the game started? I guess we could all take the approach that you're taking now, but that would mean a pointless game instead of a pointless few pages...

[gonnano]

The approach you are taking is to make no attempt to advance the game at all.
Mostly I think I can sum up my position with this quote:

NO QUOTING FROM ONGOING GAMES! gonnano, this is your one and only warning on that.

[gonnano]

sorry about the quote. I (mistakenly) thought that since it was pertaining to only theory-based discussion it would be okay, but I can see that it makes sense not to allow it.

[gonnano]

a catch-22 would be a situation that presents the illusion of having multiple outcomes when in reality the outcome is already determined. The way to get a different outcome in your case, podium, would have been to answer millar the way you did, and then NOT overreact to teejay's posts.

[gonnano]

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.

[gonnano]

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.

[gonnano]

Why don't we just get a podium claim? I would almost be willing to hammer, depending on what he claims.

[gonnano]

I agree with waiting on millar/ sawyer before lynching.

[gonnano]

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

I think that your posts have been extreme, yes. 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.

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.

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.

[gonnano]

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. 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. While I'm on the topic of the context of that post...

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!"

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? 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.

[gonnano]

I probably won't be able to post again until after my V/LA, so uhh... I guess I won't get to hammer. For the record, mallow seems scummy to me (but that doesn't mean much because mallow always seems scummy to me).

[gonnano]

Unfortunately I will be V/LA August 1-9, with the possibility of getting back the 8th or maybe even the 7th.

I am back now, and the V/LA was the reason that I didn't respond to the prod that I received.

I'm starting to get a town vibe from podium now that he's settled down a little bit, enough so that lynching him would no longer be my first choice for Day 1.

I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, while

it sounded great

, was

something I needed to at least think about

.

ODDin,

I very much would like to hammer

,

but before I do, I would like to wait for Sawyer and (I forget his name) to post

(emphasis mine)

I see absolutely no contradiction here. I don't like the fact that sawyer used this as an example of scumminess, and 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.

Unvote

Vote Sawyer

[gonnano]

I don't want to be too quick to discount my earlier suspicions. They were there for a reason, and I'm not going to throw them away just yet.

[gonnano]

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

[gonnano]

*vote

[gonnano]

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.

[gonnano]

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?

I am against lynching mallow on day 1 simply because he is extremely hard for me to read. In the (completed) game that I played with him, he acted very, very scummy and ended up flipping town. Feel free to take a look. I neglected to mention this earlier, but I don't think I'll even attempt a mallow read until I have more information.

My main suspicion of Sawyer is that he seemed to be trying to start two wagons at once so that he can jump on whichever one takes off.

[gonnano]

Unless I'm mistaken, ODDin hasn't accused anyone unless they've already been accused by someone else. If I missed something, feel free to point it out, but it seems like all of ODDin's cases have been picking up someone else's case and running with it.

[gonnano]

Can someone summarize the case on TJ for me? I don't really see all of the scumminess that other people seem to be seeing, and right now I'd much rather go with an ODDin lynch (since it looks like I won't get my Sawyer lynch).

Deadline is closing in, so in the interest of providing viable options for the town I will
UNVOTE: Sawyer
VOTE: ODDin

[gonnano]

I was looking looking back at the thread, and noticed a couple of things that I didn't see before.

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

sounded

like a contradiction... and i agree.

How does this make any difference? I realize that sounding like and being a contradiction are different things, but Sawyer was definitely trying to say that it

was

a contradiction. The only way for him to say "it sounds like a contradiction" without implying that it is in fact a contradiction would be for him to say something along the lines of "it sounds like a contradiction, but upon closer inspection..." etc., which he didn't do.

Also, in Sawyer's post 194, he sets up a very good straw man.
he takes this quote:

I didn't need to think about it due to others opinions. I wanted to wait, and thought that in the mean time, it would be great to hear from the rest of the players.

and makes this conclusion.

you just wanted to hear other opinions, but that's not related to you needing to think about it.

to recap, TJ said that he wanted to wait(to think about it), and as a bonus it would give others a chance to chime in. Then, Sawyer interprets TJ's statement as saying that he wanted to wait for others to speak, and as a bonus it would give him a chance to think.

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.

[gonnano]

I don't see anything in that post worth voting for TJ, Taz. He points out podium's reaction to millar's vote, and says that he finds it scummy. That's it. What about that post seemed overeager to you?

[gonnano]

Maybe podium can clarify how he felt, but I felt it was an all too sudden attack on podium.

What does podium's opinion have to do with your vote?

You

said that

you

thought it was an overeager attack, and I want to know why it seemed that way to

you

.

[gonnano]

You mean it seemed overeager because it was fast? The two components involved in making a response are the internet and (debatably)thinking, both of which can move pretty fast.

[gonnano]

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.

Preview Edit: Wow. If this weren't an open setup I would swear that we had a role whose win condition somehow includes replacing out.

[gonnano]

Soo... I'm thinking Vanilla Townie for the millar/Taz role. I find it unlikely that two different people would replace out of a mafia or power role without at least waiting for the first Night.

[gonnano]

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.

[gonnano]

You accused me of not bringing any new arguments to the table, I showed you it was wrong, yet you don't reply at all, and instead vote me. Yeah. Helpful and useful scumhunting.

I didn't reply because I asked for an example of a new argument from you and you provided one. I considered the matter resolved. It had nothing to do with my voting for you, which was done to open up more options for the town because I don't like the TJ lynch.

taz again: voting sawyer won't help anyone, as I really don't think sawyer is going to be lynched today (I, for one, don't think he's scum). The candidates are myself and TJ. Make up your mind between us and go for it.

You say that taz has two options. When he chooses one of them, you say this -

Taz, you're a complete fail. First you say you REFUSE to vote me. Now you think I'm more likely to be scum than TJ?

Why give him an option that you don't consider an acceptable choice?

[gonnano]

Taz, go back and read, and make up your mind about TJ and ODDin now that you've had your revelation about probability. Don't vote for TJ just because ODDin wants you to. Don't vote for ODDin just because I want you to. As I've already said, I would prefer an ODDin lynch, but if it comes down to the deadline I would hammer TJ to ensure that we don't go lynchless into N1.

...Except that I did, in post 238. Do you want me to elaborate and provide more?

Maybe you should reread my post. I said that I asked for something and you were able to provide it, therefore my question was answered satisfactorily and I didn't pursue the matter any further. There was no accusation there.

[gonnano]

Mallow doesn't seem like he's going to make it back in time for deadline, so what we need to do now is find someone who is willing to change their vote so that we can get a claim. For my part, I would not be willing to hammer TJ right this minute.

[gonnano]

I am still suspicious of Sawyer for the reasons that I stated Day 1, but out of caution I'm not going to lay down a vote just yet.

[gonnano]

I need to hear from orachi before I can even guess about his role, I still haven't seen a case on TJ that makes sense to me, and I've got a sneaking suspicion and nothing more on podium. My "weak case" is the strongest read that I have. Another point that I'd like to bring up is that Sawyer has posted less than any other slot, including mallow's slot. Granted, the content of his posting was better than mallow's, but that's not saying much.

Now, as I see it these are the odds:
1 in 3 chance that the scum nightkill our new doctor (lynch scum today or lose)
1 in 6 chance that the doctor saves someone (the town can survive if we no lynch, but not if we mislynch)
1 in 2 chance that the scum nightkill someone other than the doc and he fails to protect that person (lynch scum today or lose)

Not a pretty setup for the town, so we really need to think about today's lynch carefully.

[gonnano]

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.

He says that about me, which is an accurate observation, but says nothing about mallow when he had been doing the same thing. He claims it's because he can't get a read on mallow, but that doesn't mean he should just ignore it like he does.

What should I do with it? I haven't forgotten about it, and I definitely haven't ruled out mallow's slot as a mafia role. However, it's just not enough for me to lynch a player that I have personally known (as town) to quickhammer a D1 lynch (also town) while at the same time professing the lynchee's innocence.

Regarding the contradiction, I didn't answer post 276 because the argument was turning into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" type of thing. To make you happy, though, I'll attempt one more summary of the subject as I see it.

--------------------------------------------------------

First, TeeJay says this:

ODDin, I very much would like to hammer, but before I do, I would like to wait for Sawyer and (I forget his name) to post. I will give it a day, and see what happens.

then this:

I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, while it sounded great, was something I needed to at least think about.

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. Podium's explanation in post 276 sounded to me like "He didn't specifically state every reason for waiting in his initial post, so when he added a reason later it was a contradiction", which I don't agree with.

In post 193, TJ says this:

I didn't need to think about it due to others opinions. I wanted to wait, and thought that in the mean time, it would be great to hear from the rest of the players.

Here it gets a little bit hairy, and I could understand why someone might think that it is a contradiction. However, this was 30 posts

after

you first said that there was a contradiction. Not to mention that this is still compatible with everything he's said so far, if you look at it carefully.

The last statement that I can find from TJ on this topic is this one:

Your not listening. I wanted to hear from others input, not to decide the vote, but to see what they had to say. And yes, you are right, I didn't post anything about wanting to think about it. But I didn't think I would have to.

IMO, this clarifies the previous quote. It's also consistent with all of the other statements that TJ made.

As evidence that there is no contradiction present here, I'll resolve all four quotes into one coherent story -- something that couldn't be done with contradictory statements.

TeeJay wanted to hammer, but decided to wait. The reason for this was that he wanted to think about it some more, but he didn't specifically say that this was the reason because he didn't think that he would have to. Another reason for waiting was to hear from other players, not because he thought they could influence his decision to vote, but because he wanted to know what they had to say (presumably to get reads, etc.) and if he voted the day would end.

If I have made a logical error here or if my combined interpretation of TeeJay's statements is incorrect, please tell me. If you're just going to say the things that you've already said, don't bother.

[gonnano]

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.

The contradiction isnt about some literal contradiction

Uhh... a figurative contradiction then?
There can be no contradiction unless two statements are made which are logically incompatible with each other.

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.

Although I [a] disagree with Sawyers final conclusion, I

understand his logic. I also [c] agree with your assessment on Gonnano.

(bracketed items mine)
So, you [a] think that there was no contradiction

can see how Sawyer might think that there was a contradiction, even though you don't think there was one
[c] think that I am neither accurate nor justified in saying that there was no contradiction.

Is this correct? If b is correct, would you care to point out parts of Sawyer's logic that are not correct? If c is correct, would you care to point out the inaccurate and/or unjustified statements that I have made?

I am not saying that TeeJay's statements are not suspicious or poorly worded, but I am saying that they all resolve to a single story. What we should be doing is deciding whether or not the (non-contradictory) story is believable.

[gonnano]

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. That is why there is no contradiction.

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

Not at all. It's not the ONLY thing we should be doing, just what we should be doing instead of arguing about whether it is or isn't a contradiction. It's not a contradiction, and the sooner everyone gets past that and starts looking at believability, the better off we are.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

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

[gonnano]

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

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

Okay, not really, but I'll bet you weren't expecting to read

that

.

As evidenced by the fact that he specifically said that other peoples opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer.

"ODDin, I very much would like to hammer," (as TJ already admitted, what follows this portion of the quote is unrelated to his decision to hammer)

TJ did say that other people's opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer. However, he also said that he wanted to hear from them anyway, which would be kind of hard to do if he had gone ahead and ended the day. 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. So the entire quotes are relevant in this case, not just pieces of them. 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.

Gonnano, you never respond to why this doesn't prove anything.

I don't really understand the question... are you saying that something doesn't prove anything or am I supposed to be saying that? What something are we talking about that doesn't prove anything?

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.

Will you please reiterate and expand why it is that you think Sawyer is scum.

1. Quite lurky, IMO
2. Either is using podium's figurative meaning of the word "contradiction" or is pushing a case built on a straw man
3. Throughout the game he has stayed pretty much squarely on the fence, my guess is so he can quickly support any bandwagon while claiming to have been suspicious of that person the entire time.

@TeeJay:
So, you [a] think that there was no contradiction

can see how Sawyer might think that there was a contradiction, even though you don't think there was one

Is this correct? If b is correct, would you care to point out parts of Sawyer's logic that are not correct?

[gonnano]

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'.

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.

It's not about stating each reason... there was only ONE reason, and he gave it.

If I went to Africa and only saw three elephants, does that mean there are only three elephants in Africa? Can I accuse Africa of contradicting itself if I later find out that it contains 500,000 elephants?

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.

[gonnano]

His statement implied

As I said before, you can't include your assumptions in determining whether or not there was a contradiction. Implied meanings would fall under the category of trying to figure out if he is lying or not, not whether he contradicted himself or not.

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.

Re: Orochi's questions:
1.Most of my suspicion of mallow is because he posted basically no real content, but I'm not going to hold it against you because it seemed more VI than scummy to me
2.I wasn't really surprised, because I thought it was pretty obvious that no role with a night action would go through two replacements during D1
3.I could maybe see podium and Sawyer as scum partners, because they seem to have been on the same side of just about everything, and reluctant to pressure each other. Other than that I would say mallow the wild card would be more likely than TJ as a partner.

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.

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

[gonnano]

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.

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)

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, 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. 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. 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.

I thought people would have been smart enough to see this, which is why my earlier explanation was more general, referencing something that I thought everyone could see.

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!"

[gonnano]

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.

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.

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.

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

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said that I had never explained anything.

[gonnano]

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.

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.

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.

[gonnano]

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.

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. Ignore the fact that the things that he

actually said

all fit together.

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?

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

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".

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??

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. 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. Oh, btw, which vote is this that I'm justifying?

Gonanno- Continues to argue with Podium about me contradicting myself. Honestly Gonanno, this argument isn't going anywhere. I am actually getting conserned that you are attempting to buddy with me. I can argue my own case if I find that I need to. Currently everything that is being said are only reiterations, you and Podium are talking past each other.

I tried to end it earlier, but Sawyer and podium didn't like that so I'm back in the saddle again. And I disagree about the argument not moving forward, because if you look you can see the points that they've dropped in response to my explanations. 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.

The fact that you continue to tunnel Sawyer and at the same time

Oh, so you're saying that I'm tunneling, and in addition to tunneling I'm discussing other things. What did tunneling mean again? Cause I thought it was focusing exclusively on one thing.

[gonnano]

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

You're right. It's getting old and I won't further it any more.

Something I wanted to consider for a minute, post 330 where Gonnano comments about my entry into the game in mallow's place, he comments that he couldn't even begin to guess what my role is. Not my alignment, my role. Phrasing doesn't feel right there. Already know my alignment and trying to figure out if I'm the nurse?

I tend to think about things in terms of roles, not alignment. Obviously you have only my word on this, though, so all I can say is that it makes more sense to me to consider possible night actions that a person might have when I am looking at their motivation for doing something.

[gonnano]

uhh no, I didn't ask about his role, I just said that I didn't have a good guess as to what it was.

[gonnano]

have nurse protect doc ?

[gonnano]

I'm still here... waiting for the other three. Orochi said something about going along if he saw support, so really we need Sawyer to show up and TeeJay to say what his actual position is.

[gonnano]

Man, it's a tough call between these two... I'll have to think about this some more.

I'm a VT, not that it matters at this point.

[gonnano]

Orochi, who did you protect last night?

[gonnano]

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

what was scummy about me again?

[gonnano]

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.
2. TJ claimed first, which is the less appealing choice for scum because they don't know who they're up against yet. He had a VLA notice already posted, which would have been the perfect excuse to wait.
3. Orochi noted mallow's unhelpfulness, but has continued the lurky traditions of his predecessor, maybe because he thinks he can get by with it.

[gonnano]

I find it strange that both of our claimed nurses say they protected the same person. What exactly is so townie about Sawyer that both nurses claimed to have protected him?

Throws suspicion on Sawyer for not voting for his suspects…but doesn’t mention that TEEJAY did the same thing with Podium? >.> Almost seventy-five posts…most of them walls…and no vote? And SAWYER’S suspicious?

Are you talking about when TJ was considering a hammer vote? That's a pretty different situation.

He accuses Podium in post #45. Doesn’t find him suspicious until he’s at L-1? REEEALLY?

podium was nowhere near L-1 at that point.

I was feeling the same as Jen just about the entire time up until Gonnano made his 3 points regarding the claim and counterclaim. Since Orochi wasn't able to respond, nothing can be gained from it aside from speculation and top that off with Jens case on TJ, I'm going with my original vote.

read "for a second I thought I might have to bus my partner, but then I got this great excuse not to!"

I'll have to hear from TJ to make my final conclusion, but jenniwren's posts seem to me like scum trying anything to push the town into losing the game.

[gonnano]

Sawyer, the point of my comment was not that you were bussing TJ, but that you might have had to bus orochi. Luckily, orochi got replaced and you throw all my points out the window and hop right back on the TJ wagon.

[gonnano]

Any thoughts, podium?

I'm still leaning towards voting jenniwren, despite her masterful employment of AtE in that last post.

[gonnano]

i just dont see town going after sawyer when there were more appealing choices

but scum would want to blend in with the town as much as possible, not stake out new and dangerous territory by suspecting someone who really hasn't been looked at thoroughly yet. If you recognize that there were easier choices, why do you think that I would go after Sawyer if I were scum?

along with the fact that sawyer didn't really do anything scummy

What has he done that's townie? (by the way, if TJ shows up I would like for him to answer this question as well)

I've been reading and thinking, and I've come to a decision.

Podium, before you hammer, look at TJ's overall play and the play provided by jenniwren's slot. TJ's play doesn't all make sense as town, but then again it doesn't make much sense as scum either. Keep in mind that TJ had given a V/LA announcement and had a perfect excuse to wait to claim, but chose to go first instead. Keep in mind that jenniwren's predecessors were huge lurkers.

Look at each person's play today and see which one you think is following the scum motivation here, which is to pull out all the stops and get someone lynched to end the game.

I realize that if you've convinced yourself that I am scumbuddies with TJ there's not much I can say to influence you, but if you decide to take my advice I think you'll find that jenniwren is really the better choice here.

VOTE: jenniwren

[gonnano]

We could actually not vote either of us, and instead vote Gonnano.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Instead of voting one of the people who has a 50% chance of being scum, vote someone who has a 33% chance of being scum.

Comes off as a scum attempt to get anyone at all lynched.

TJ, I asked you why Sawyer was townie because you said that you protected him. Why did you choose him? Why was my question a strange one?

[gonnano]

I guess sawyer is just playing innocent (or maybe podium???) because even though I know I'm town I can't see anyone else to vote for besides me if TJ flips scum.

[gonnano]

Oh well. At least one of my scum reads was right... too bad I couldn't convince anyone else.

I think I let myself be fooled by TJ because I knew that if I said that I still thought he might be scum after I defended his statement I would get all kinds of heat for "contradicting" myself. Also, when jenni came in and started slinging AtE around like a pro it made me sure that the mallow slot (which I already had a sneaking suspicion about) was scum.