Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[Xalxe]

Yeah but be real here: who would you rather have one down? Hmm?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Yeah but be real here: who would you rather
have one down? Hmm?

Firstly, for the sake of town unity, neither of you.

Secondly, if I was considering things considered by my mind, I'd say him over you any day. I really doubt you're scum in this situation.

[Tierce]

It accomplishes nothing because now you drop to where he would have been due to the healing rules as I understand them (you only regain 1 within the time frame even if you heal multiple times)?

Actually, check the rule errata that Flay posted. It's 1:1 recovery; our Heals are only temporarily limited.

Pseudo Votecount 2.1

(1)

Xalxe

- Kinetic

(11)

Not voting

- Albert B. Rampage, kanyeknowsbest,

(Kinetic,)

Lady Lambdadelta, MattP, quadz08, scooby, Tierce, Voidedmafia, Xalxe, Yosarian2, Zdenek


Let me know if there are any mistakes.

[Voidedmafia]

Vote: MattP

Kinetic, I suppose I get your view on Xalxe, though I'll wait for Xalxe to respond before I say anything.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

[Kinetic]

I'd prefer it no one new hurts Peregrine, since we there's a pretty good chance that scum pick up rage by being in on townie lynches, so limiting the number of people who actually do the hurting would be positive.

Was there something about raking?
Well--there should be.

HURT: PeregrineV

Also, I would have hurt PV but someone asked for no one else to hurt PV incase scum get stuff for being on a wagon or something? I was skimming because exams but I seem to recall reading that and I didn't have a problem with it.

The first hurt was placed on PV on Nov 30, 2012 2:49 pm, Zd asked no one else to Hurt him besides those who already have on Dec 02, 2012 3:38 pm. Tierce finished off PV on Dec 02, 2012 4:01 pm. Even assuming ZD's logic is correct, your excuse excuses the 23 minutes between when Zd asked no one new to hurt him, AFTER Pv had sent in his last possible hurt, and when he was finally killed. Why did you not hurt PV between the 48 hours and 51 minutes previous to the request that no one new hurt PV when you knew that your hurt could prevent a renegade player, who you suspected at the time of being scum, from randomly hurting again?

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting

Kinetic

PV; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting

Kinetic

PV.

Yup, but they are not conflicting reasons. If you'll notice, I'm not as suspicious of quadz, Tierce, Void, and to a lessor extent Yos. They all gave reasons for what they were going to do, and then followed through. Their play has been town-oriented, and their reasoning solid.

The three I named didn't hurt, but then again, neither did kanyeknowsbest, Scooby, or Albert. If it is like you're strawmanning, and my reason is simply because they didn't hurt, then I should also be as suspicious of them as I am the three of you. But it isn't that simple. I'm suspicious of you because of the cognitive dissonance between your position (you thought PV was scum/scummy enough to support killing him), but then when push came to shove, the three of you backed off and didn't hurt him at all. That is what is scummy. Not that you "didn't hurt him", but that you suspected he was scum, went so far as to push for his death with a vote in your case, and then as soon as it was time move on PV you backed off.

At first I thought that was because you were giving the PV fake pressure because you were both scum, and when you realized it might get him killed you backed off. Now I'm starting to think either you wanted me to think that, or else you knew PV was going to die and you didn't want a townie's blood on your hands. LLD is on the list for a slightly different reason, which I'll go over next. Frankly, her back off is the worst of the three, but you're a close close second. Matt's is the weakest because he only expressed some interest in going after PV, but with the amount of pressure he was under he might have just as well thrown any name out there instead of his own.

Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so. If I was suspicious of someone "just because they hurt", then I would also be suspicious of quadz, tierce, void, and Yos. I'm not. Instead, it has to do with HOW Xalve voted, when and specifically in that perfect little window of AFTER PV made the last possible hurt that he could have made, but before PV died. Frankly, anyone who would have so nimbly decided to finally hurt then would be absurdly suspicious.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

You call it a "weak reason" now, but this entire time you've been couching your play on these "weak reasons" as you so put. In fact, this is one YOU put forth, not me. I tend to agree that it is a possibility. And because its a possibility, anyone who acts suspiciously in furtherance of this possibility is acting scummy in my book.

Yet, just because I'm very suspicious of you, doesn't mean what you say is completely worthless. In fact, YOU are the one acting incongruent when you say when you say one thing, but then do another. You've done it twice just in the last couple posts. First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one. Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

Next, despite you harping that scum might benefit from being on a lynch, when I point out that Xalve is acting like opportunistic scum if that is the case with his hurt, instead of agreeing, AGAIN you are backing off. Makes me think that either A) you and Xalve are scum buddies and your own argument just caught your scum buddy in a lie and now you're trying to discredit YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, or B) You're scum, and you are trying to get your hands off another townie lynch again just when I start to look at someone who isn't you.

You know, both of those options have something in common. Your play making more sense as scum than town.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

Way to twist this, but here is a better idea: If you are scum, you knew PV's alignment. When you unvoted him to get away from the mislynch, and it works even better for you because your "#1 Suspect" is the one leading the lynch. Well, you can't agree with him on anything, so you have to irrationally distance yourself from a lynch that you helped start.

It is even a stronger case because, you said it yourself, I suspected you and you suspected me. If we go by your logic above, my actions PRE-FLIP make complete sense. My number one suspect, but whom I cannot convince enough people to vote for suddenly abandons his read on my #2 suspect just as that person's death is looking likely. From my point of view, that looks like you trying to save a scum buddy pre-flip. Regardless of PV's alignment, its a win-win for you as scum.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

You see, and now you can conveniently make this case POST flip, and it makes you look magnanimous and town. You knew all along PV was town. When in reality, this information you had pre-flip, but didn't offer it then so that you could use it to set up someone post-flip. After all, the great Zd knew PV was town because X Y and Z were scummy.

I call bullshit.

After looking over, and really just being confused to hell by Xalve's reaction right now, this all looks like you're dead to rights as scum Zd.

unvote;vote Zd

[Xalxe]

Kinetic, can you keep people's names in quote tags? I assume those are all zdnek quotes.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, can you keep people's names in quote tags? I assume those are all zdnek quotes.

I did keep his name, I just split up his post and din't type out the entire quote string just ["quote]. Anything quoted without a name below something with a name is from the same person as above it and the same post.

[scooby]

fuckprod

[quadz08]

xalxe, what's your take on that kinetic post?

scooby, post dammit

[Zdenek]

I'm suspicious of you because of the cognitive dissonance between your position (you thought PV was scum/scummy enough to support killing him), but then when push came to shove, the three of you backed off and didn't hurt him at all.

I thought he was suspicious enough to vote, but I thought there was someone else who should have died first.

Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so.

If you read my post you'd see that I know this and even talked about it.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

Oh you did read it and you even quoted it. Now, who is strawmanning?

First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one.

Well, I did, so there's that:

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense,

Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

I did give my opinion on Peregrine, so the first point is false. Now, I didn't say that was the reason for my original suspicion. It was, and I also don't see how that matters.

Tierce paints a pretty good picture of PeregrineV inventing things.

Yes, you gave no reasons, so I don't agree with any of them. Pretty simple logic when you look at it that way.

I really hate this reply. It looks like a really feeble excuse for making up garbage.

I also really hate that Peregrine shot back.

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Next, despite you harping that scum might benefit from being on a lynch, when I point out that Xalve is acting like opportunistic scum if that is the case with his hurt, instead of agreeing, AGAIN you are backing off. Makes me think that either A) you and Xalve are scum buddies and your own argument just caught your scum buddy in a lie and now you're trying to discredit YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, or B) You're scum, and you are trying to get your hands off another townie lynch again just when I start to look at someone who isn't you.

No Kinetic, I have reservations about my argument, I don't think that it's wrong, but I also don't think that on it's own it's good enough to warrant lynching someone.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

If there is anything else in Kinetic's post that anyone wants me to address I will.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote: MattP

Kinetic, I suppose I get your view on Xalxe, though I'll wait for Xalxe to respond before I say anything.

I agree with this vote.

[Mr. Flay]

Hell spasms and groans around you, growing darker and then brighter after a moment. When the Hellquake settles, everyone feels stronger.

Second Damage Tally of Epoch II:

• Xalxe
  is at default HP after giving another Heal.
  
• Kinetic
  ,
  kanyeknowsbest
  ,
  MattP
  ,
  quadz08
  ,
  Tierce
  ,
  Zdenek
  ,
  Yosarian2
  ,
  Voidedmafia
  ,
  Lady Lambdadelta
  ,
  scooby
  and
  Albert B. Rampage
  are all at 1 HP above normal.

[Xalxe]

ModDevil: Did my heal on Kinetic count?

Yes, see edited count above.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town. Thus, my READS are going to have to change, and the reactions of the rest of the players in the game will be based on what would they do if PV was town and they knew that. Based on a TOWN flip on PV, I'm going to be suspicious of two types of people: Those who acting like they supported the wagon, but ultimately kept their hands clean, and those who jumped on at the last minute opportunistically.

The only other thing that could be "inconsistent" there is the fact that I am suspicious of both people who hurt and did not hurt PV.

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so.

If you read my post you'd see that I know this and even talked about it.

Dismissive, but ultimately doesn't address my point, which is: You claimed I was scummy for both attacking people who hurt and those who did not hurt. Specifically you stated:

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one.

Well, I did, so there's that:
In post 654, Zdenek wrote:
To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense,

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

I did give my opinion on Peregrine, so the first point is false. Now, I didn't say that was the reason for my original suspicion. It was, and I also don't see how that matters.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

No Kinetic, I have reservations about my argument, I don't think that it's wrong, but I also don't think that on it's own it's good enough to warrant lynching someone.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

Or is it you've closed off your mind and decided to keep acting like I'm scum for the entire game because you are scum and have to choose someone. Why not the person who is most suspicious of you. You see, that's the difference between me and you. I'm holding out the possibility that you could be town still. I read your posts objectively, and if you bring up a good point, I supported you multiple times when I thought you have had good arguments. I've incorporated some of those into my own. But you seem to have blinders on where certain things are concerned, and it is like you're going out of your way to go about it in the scummiest way possible. And I cannot figure out any town motivations to do so.

[Voidedmafia]

Welp, looks like accumlated Rage is publicly announced in-thread. At least, that's what I'm gathering from the fact that everyone but Xalxe's now full HP+1.

Not entirely sure about my feelings on Kinetic vs. Zdenek. Need a lil' more.

P-EDIT: Well, there's a little more. I like Kinetic a lot more based on how the argument's gone so far.

unvote

Vote on zde pending a response.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town.

Fair enough.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

Yawn.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.
[\quote]
In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.
[\quote]
Considering your ignoring the point above, this is quite ironic.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.
[\quote]
I gave them pre-flip too. Go look. I even quoted them for you.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE [did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.
And yawn.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town.

Fair enough.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

Yawn.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.

Considering your ignoring the point above, this is quite ironic.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.

I gave them pre-flip too. Go look. I even quoted them for you.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE [did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.
And yawn.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

[Kinetic]

In post 547, Zdenek wrote:
Tierce paints a pretty good picture of PeregrineV inventing things.

In post 418, PeregrineV wrote:
Yes, you gave no reasons, so I don't agree with any of them. Pretty simple logic when you look at it that way.

I really hate this reply. It looks like a really feeble excuse for making up garbage.

I also really hate that Peregrine shot back.

Apologies, I didn't see this. I will rescind the fact that you gave no reasons. That being said, you reasons don't follow your actions, and in a way it ties even further into my argument as to WHY didn't you hurt him then. Allow me to rephrase my argument. You gave reasons why you thought he was scum post-hurting, pre-flipping, even commented that his actions after being hurt were scummy and yet... you did nothing. You followed an anti-town motive by letting him continue attacking me. So, basically, you pretty much used a hurt on me through PV by refusing to stop him.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

Allowing an action to be taken that is anti-town because you refuse to prevent it is anti-town.

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.

To the first... *eye roll* 5 should still be plenty even now. The last thing we need is to completely stall for another 3 weeks.

To the second, a conclusion is not analysis. Why do you find it weird? My best guess? Because we both agreed he did something scummy, but you're so convinced I'm scum that you refuse to find anything redeeming in my play, so my every action must be scummy. You're either scum, and therefore that makes sense, or you're chasing shadows. If it's the latter, fucking stop it. If it's the former, please continue because you'll be lynched for it eventually.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

I call it as I see it. Here I see you doing things that are completely against what you've said before them, makes me thing you have a reason to do so. Makes me wonder why. When you're protecting someone who did something you find scummy, that looks scummy.

[Kinetic]

EBWOP: Forgot this part.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

But that is what I'm pointing out. This reasoning and my attacks on you were separate until you conflated them. I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported. You then attacked that reasoning. I attacked YOU for attacking a reasoning you previously supported, therefore undermining my arguments against Xalxe. That is the scummy thing YOU did.

You can't have it both ways.

You either approve of the reasoning, and therefore approve my attack on Xalxe. In this case, there is no attack on you at all, so there is no way it can be in the "context of my attacks on you", or;

You disapprove of my reasoning, and therefore disapprove or my attack on Xaxle.

You can't approve of my reasoning, and then disapprove of my using it as a basis of an attack on Xalxe.

[Zdenek]

Apologies, I didn't see this. I will rescind the fact that you gave no reasons. That being said, you reasons don't follow your actions, and in a way it ties even further into my argument as to WHY didn't you hurt him then. Allow me to rephrase my argument. You gave reasons why you thought he was scum post-hurting, pre-flipping, even commented that his actions after being hurt were scummy and yet... you did nothing. You followed an anti-town motive by letting him continue attacking me. So, basically, you pretty much used a hurt on me through PV by refusing to stop him.

I could understand why people found PV scummy. That does not imply that I think that he was the correct person to be killing off.

The idea that this should be the case is incredibly counter-productive. A lot of the time in normal mafia game people get run up, and their reactions under pressure are useful, and people's reads reads or their desire for a person to be lynched change for all sorts of reasons. Your idea that it is scummy for me to at once understand why someone is found scummy by some people, but to still not want to kill that person off, is wrong-headed.

Why do you find it weird?

Let's go through your posts:

Apologies, my attention is not 100% here right now. Also, Zd is scum.

You indicate that you think that I am scum.

I'm going to assume the reason I wasn't hurt was because of someone intervening, thank you. And if that's the case, I think I found scum. If there is another reason, well, I still think I found scum. Stay tuned.

You indicate that you think that you found scum and that it has something to do with someone intervening on your behalf.

Then you vote Xalxe using reasoning that I have suggested.

You're using reasoning that I suggested and you are not following through on your previous comment about someone intervening on your behalf.

EBWOP: Forgot this part.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

But that is what I'm pointing out. This reasoning and my attacks on you were separate until you conflated them. I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported. You then attacked that reasoning. I attacked YOU for attacking a reasoning you previously supported, therefore undermining my arguments against Xalxe. That is the scummy thing YOU did.

You can't have it both ways.

You either approve of the reasoning, and therefore approve my attack on Xalxe. In this case, there is no attack on you at all, so there is no way it can be in the "context of my attacks on you", or;

You disapprove of my reasoning, and therefore disapprove or my attack on Xaxle.

You can't approve of my reasoning, and then disapprove of my using it as a basis of an attack on Xalxe.

I don't disapprove of it. What I said was,

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

It has merit, I approve of it, I don't think that it's a strong reason. In particular, considering how you have been attacking me, your vote on Xalxe because of it, doesn't make much sense. I can't believe that this isn't clear.

[kanyeknowsbest]

Can explain more (or go more in-depth to flesh these out) when I get home, but to give a rough outline of the rest of my reads:

town:
Kayne
Yos

Kayne's ISO has been bereft of scumhunting (beyond light prodding in Matt's direction for reads and such). His theory discussion is fine-ish, but it's not really enough to sway me in any one direction, so he's null.

what changed in this period of time where my iso did not change at all?

[Voidedmafia]

A re-read?

[Zdenek]

Welp, looks like accumlated Rage is publicly announced in-thread. At least, that's what I'm gathering from the fact that everyone but Xalxe's now full HP+1.

Not entirely sure about my feelings on Kinetic vs. Zdenek. Need a lil' more.

P-EDIT: Well, there's a little more. I like Kinetic a lot more based on how the argument's gone so far.

unvote

Vote on zde pending a response.

Which of his points do you agree with?

[quadz08]

Doing ISOs and stuff

-MattP reads as really scummy, he didn't have much to say that wasn't attacking those who attacked him.
-LLD reads as townier than I originally read her as. She seems reasonable, and her thoughts are coming from a town state of mind.
-Would like to see more from ABR, but he's at least made a couple of contentish posts recently >_>
-Not a fan of Xalxe's hurt on PV that came late. He posted after the hurting started, after expressing the fact that he agreed PV was scum. Yes, he said he'd prefer a MattP lynch, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't contribute to the lynching of a different major scumread.
-Kanye makes his return to the thread with an excellent question / point; he's still town
-Voided is somewhere in the middle for me. The interactions with PV seem town-motivated, but I still don't like his replace-in post. His defense of Kinetic's seeming contradiction is also something to look into, but I'm pretty sure Kinetic is town, so if it's anything, it's buddying.
-Kinetic still town.
-SCOOBY HOLY SHIT POST SOMETHING
-Tierce probtown
-Yos is pretty town for hurting PV in direct response to PV hurting Kinetic
-Zdenek not as scummy as before, but still on the scummy side of the spectrum

VOTE: MattP

MODTHING: Can you do something about Scooby?