Mini 404: Diablo Mafia (Game Over)

[chaotic_diablo]

Welcome to my realm!!!

vote chaotic_diablo

[chaotic_diablo]

Um, not at all Jive. I asked for a random nmber. That number was the person I was going to vote for. You could have gave a number, he just got to it first.

Craplogic

How? His explanation is technically true, so his logic can't be crap. I feel that you're just trying to grasp straws and see which bandwagon will stick.

[quote"livingod"]Let's do this Pooky The Magical Bear™ style!

ScotScum12 and Cogito Ergo Scum are obviously buddies. So is DoScum. And KaleidoScum. And Scum the Dragons. And The Central Scum didn't even confirm. Don't even get me started on TheScumMachine. Remusscum didn't even bother to post, lurking perhaps? Neither did Fruscum. Chaotic_Scum is advocating his own lynch. Pata is the only other town here (besides me).[/quote] Pooky style can only be done by Pooky. You are definitely not Pooky.

[chaotic_diablo]

How? His explanation is technically true, so his logic can't be crap. I feel that you're just trying to grasp straws and see which bandwagon will stick.

I was mostly kidding, but your quickness to jump to his defense has been noted.

Also, scotmany: what if someone told you to vote for yourself? Would you have done it?

Mostly kidding? You placed a fos, which means you intentionally want suspicion on a particular person, and tried to refute the opposing argument. That doesn't look like a joke to me. I think you're backtracking.

fos TheJiveMachine

Tell me, is accusing someone of craplogic a defense for another person? Absolutely not. I simply told you that you're counterargument was crap, not you're accusation.

[chaotic_diablo]

Of course my counterargument was crap. That's the part that was a joke.

That's an extremely bad excuse to give crap reasoning: "My argument is so bad, that it's a joke!"

A real counterargument is the one I'll offer now:

It was fairly obvious who was going to give scotmany this 'random' number to vote, Cogito was the only other one to post before him and was still in the thread. Just seemed like an awfully non random way to random vote, letting someone else pick your votee. I'm not saying this is definitive, nowhere close, just examining every possibility.

Okay, so this is you're proof that Scot's argument is crap? Let'see how he responds.

[chaotic_diablo]

Jive said that there was little logic, not no logic, and that it didn't warrant a vote.

[chaotic_diablo]

Ok, without much logic.

C_D, why defend jive for a question directed directly at him?

Because it is clear to me what he said. If you're going to unintentionally misinterpret a post, then there is no reason why I shouldn't correct you and prevent confusion.

[chaotic_diablo]

Thats why I included the question of did I misread it.

And that's why I answered and corrected you.

[chaotic_diablo]

It's page three, so the joking should really stop.

fos livingod

[chaotic_diablo]

It's page three, so the joking should really stop.

fos livingod

Why only FoS LG when CES, remus, and myself were all joking around too?

FoS: Chaotic_Diablo

[/b]

While it's true that all four of you have been joking, CES, remus, and you haven't been joking the entire time. The way livingod hasn't done anything and continues to joke around looks more like an attempt to inhibit our search for scum.

[chaotic_diablo]

Diablo: Look who's talking? At least I did something. You, on the other hand, did not post once on page 3. As soon as someone had something important to say (like you in post 75) I would stop the joking (and I did). At least I was posting something instead of laying low. I think my vote is still on you, if it's not,

FoS crazy_devil

Of course you did something. You did something that had absolutely nothing to do for the benefit of town. There is a difference between posting crap and posting content. I'm not the only one who didn't post on page 3 and even that doesn't mean I haven't been trying to search out scum in the past pages.
You've been:
1. Encouraging contentless joking
2. Ripping off pooky so you can hide behind that logic
3. Crying wolf (scum) all day long

That isn't helping town and I think my fos is warranted.

Ooh, was the crazy devil voting himself too now? A bit too shy to pass out a vote, perhaps because you're scum?

And your point is what? That you get to decide who I should vote for? Or are you suggesting that you're scum and I should vote for you? You're dancing along the WIFOM line in which I can just as likely be town or scum with my selfvote.

[chaotic_diablo]

It would be helpful if you voted for someone now, c_d.

Really?

unvote

vote livingod

I'm being helpful!

[chaotic_diablo]

Again, I posted, you did not.

You posted crap. Posting crap just tells us you want to let everyone know that you're "here" without introducing anything new to the thread. That is far more scummy than not posting since it just tells us you're lurking. In addition, numerous posts distract town from searching scum. I'd rather have less posts with more content than more posts with crap.

Yet you're the only one of those whose vote is related to the structure of posts.

What vote? The vote I just recently made on you? Or the self-vote that had nothing to do with structure of posts?

1. I did not encourage it. If/when someone pointed out something important I would/did stop.
2. It's not logic.
3. I was ripping off Pooky, you said so yourself.

1. So pointing out that you're encouraging contentless joking is important? I guess it is.
2. It is logic. It's called a "logical fallacy". http://www.mafiascum.net/cgi-bin/wiki.p ... _Authority
Whether you feel that it is logic or not, imitating players is scummy.
3. Imitating players is giving you an excuse to get away with something that is scummy. Your actions are your responsibility, not pooky's.

Self voting = Baad. It's defensive. You don't want to accuse anyone because you know they're not scum, and you don't want to vote your buddy because then you'll be related. It's pretty much unconscious.

I've accused jive and you. How is that related to your point?

No, YOU'RE dancing on the WIFOM line with your self vote. WIFOM = Baad.

I'll have to give you that. I'm definitely WIFOM dancing on the line.

[chaotic_diablo]

No, YOU'RE dancing on the WIFOM line with your self vote. WIFOM = Baad.

I'll have to give you that. I'm definitely WIFOM dancing on the line.

Wow, that really helps the town.

Unvote
Vote C_D

Is that an excuse to hop on a bandwagon?

I'm sure that the many points I brought up against livingod certainly pales in comparisan to what you brought up.

[chaotic_diablo]

Actually, no, it doesn't. You're sitting around throwing craplogic at livingod and incriminating yourself and you think the only reason to vote you is to jump on a wagon?

Crap logic? How? If you feel that my points on LG are crap, then explain. Which points are crap? Which points are wrong? Please don't claim crap and expect to get away with it.

[chaotic_diablo]

A) Saying that posting jokes is scummier than posting nothing.
B) Only going after LG for this. If you're so opposed to "contentless joking, why did you both intially and continuously attack only one of at least three or 4 people who were doing it at the same time he was, all while you posted <i>nothing</i>?
C) Claiming that LG is trying to appeal to authority. WTF?
D) Trying to justify a self vote by saying that it is totally defensive WIFOM and that there's nothing wrong with it. Double WTF?

A. Why don't you explain how posting nothing is scummier. Be aware that I

have

posted in this game.
B. I already explained that LG was posting nothing for the entire game. While others have at least contributed, LG had yet to contribute at all prior to a certain point in time.
C.

Let's do this Pooky The Magical Bear™ style!

ScotScum12 and Cogito Ergo Scum are obviously buddies. So is DoScum. And KaleidoScum. And Scum the Dragons. And The Central Scum didn't even confirm. Don't even get me started on TheScumMachine. Remusscum didn't even bother to post, lurking perhaps? Neither did Fruscum. Chaotic_Scum is advocating his own lynch. Pata is the only other town here (besides me).

3. Crying wolf (scum) all day long

3. I was ripping off Pooky, you said so yourself.

Is that proof enough?
D. I'm sure you can find something wrong with it. However, LG has provided reasoning that has been proven false.

[chaotic_diablo]

Self voting = Baad. It's defensive. You don't want to accuse anyone because you know they're not scum, and you don't want to vote your buddy because then you'll be related. It's pretty much unconscious.

LG is assuming that because I'm self-voting, I'm afraid to accuse others and vote for scum buddies for fear of being related. I have already made clear that I

will

accuse people based on how they behave. That defeats his point and makes his reasoning false.

[chaotic_diablo]

EBWODP:

A) First, why don't you explain how being lighthearted before any real content has come up is scummy. Note I never even said that your lack of posting earlier was scummy, it's that you attacked LG for not posting game related content on page three when you posted nothing on page three at all.

B) That's not a justification.


C) No, it's not appealing to authority when it's a person's first post of the game and completely non serious. The fact that you even bring this up shows how far you're reaching.

D) Proven by who? You?

A. I did not attack LG for not posting game related content on page three. I attacked him for posting no content at all in the entire game. Not only that, he is trying ot encourage joking even well beyond page three.

Why is no one in the festive, joking Day 1 mood? Who in their right mind would ask for a page 2 lynch and be serious about it? It's not a good town tactic, not a good scum tactic either. Guys, IT'S DAY 1!!! Chill. I bet the Scrutinizer wagon has at least one scum.

I'm seeing a "chill" sign for Day 1, not page four or three.

B. It is a justification. I have presented information that allows me to favor an attack on LG rather than everyone else. Again, I'm attacking LG for posting no content at all, not because he isn't posting content.

C. So my self-vote is also non-serious? It's

my first post

in the game afterall. I don't see LG giving it a "it's okay because it's

non-serious

.

D. Explained already.

[chaotic_diablo]

There's a difference between commenting, FoSing, and voting. A lack of willingness to vote anyone is saying that you don't want anyone to think you have strong convictions about anyone, and I agree it's a very defensive move.

Why do we vote? Do we vote to twiddle our thumbs? If there is no reason to vote, then why should I? I've already shown that I can show an opinion just by FOSing someone. What is a FOS for? It's to place suspicion. Can't you differentiate between the functions of a vote and a FOS?

[chaotic_diablo]

Bolding mine. I have not made any real arguments against anyone. It's POOKY'S style, remember? "Arguments" like that aren't meant to be taken seriously. So I don't even consider them as such.

Just because it's POOKY'S style, doesn't mean you can get away with it because it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. You are not pooky and using his "style" as an excuse to justify certain actions is scummy. Stop using pooky as your argument and use something with substance.

By invoking the name or ideas of an experienced player, or Paragon of Mafia Hunters, they absolve themselves of responsibility if the theory turns out to be false later.

This is basically what you're doing.

Explained!? Where? I can't see it.

I certainly can. It starts with post 101 and continues with an odd sequence of posts.

[chaotic_diablo]

I have not pushed for a lynch using Pooky's style. My random accusations were not "theories" and it's quite obvious that my "theory," as the Wikiquote you refer to states, IS false because I accused everyone but me to be scum.

You forgot Pata.

I am not willing to support any lynch or force any claim or promote any tactic based on my random Day 1 accusations.

And now my vote on chaotic_scum is warranted, somewhat.

If you do not like my random Day 1 Appeal to Authority, then I do not like your random Day 1 selfvote.

You made it quite clear that you didn't like my self-vote from the beginning. Why should I give you leeway on your post?

[chaotic_diablo]

Pooky is a player who doesn't do anything other than vote and spam without reason. Fritzler is the same but spams even more. It's the kind of playstyle I

hate

the most and I feel it causes the game to favor only those who have made themselves a "reputation". In truth, they dance along the WIFOM line because they will do it whether they are town or scum. It makes engaging them a pain in the ass.

[chaotic_diablo]

Anyways, I didn't feel the need to respond since livin had basically said what I was thinking: I don't think C_D proved his point, and saying he did when I hadn't seen anyone agree with him and I certainly didn't seemed absurd.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you either. Who agreed with your point?

There's a difference between commenting, FoSing, and voting. A lack of willingness to vote anyone is saying that you don't want anyone to think you have strong convictions about anyone, and I agree it's a very defensive move.

I don't see anyone hopping on me because of my self-vote. I see them hopping on because they just want a scapegoat. In reality they are just avoiding the conversation.

If he had proved it, I would have conceded that he was right. But from my point of view, he didn't come close. I wasn't saying it wouldn't have mattered if he did prove it, I was saying it was incredibly arrogant of him to say he proved a point when he was apparently the only person who thought so.

When did you become the most valued of opinions? If I'm right, then that means you approve of it? Your opinion has the same worth as mine so why are you "judging"?
I can approve of my own actions if I think they're correct. If you believe I'm wrong, then why don't you prove it? Is it arrogant to say that "you" have proven a point if you are correct? Why are you automatically assuming that you're right? Is that arrogance as well?

I have to agree with DoS, C_D is claiming he proved his point when it doesn't seem like anyone agrees with him.

Who are these "anyone" you are talking about? Are they disagreeing with me?

Despite the fact that he's been voting the devil, TCS has done some votehopping. IGMEOY...

I'm going to have to ask you to stop calling me the devil. It was fun the first few times, but now it has lost its charm.

[chaotic_diablo]

Lucifer, there is a very slight difference between someone not agreeing with you- those not commenting on it-

Why are you putting words in people's mouths?

and disagreeing with you- those arguing against you.

please explain this difference. I literally translated your post into "Everyone is against you".

Couldn't help the Lucifer bit, sorry.

O well.

[chaotic_diablo]

I did explain the difference. Read post 144 again. I explained it as I stated it.

I don't see a clear difference between "not agreeing" and "disagreeing". Assuming that they are just labels for particular people, it's incorrect to put words in their mouths and assume that it is the opinion that they

must

have. As for those who "disagree" with me, they haven't exactly won support over the "not agreeing".

[chaotic_diablo]

Grahr, where is everybody? Why is no one discussing anything but the spurious bandwagon on c_d?

What could possibly be more important than getting me lynched?

Since here hasn't been much activity, I'll go ahead and answer Rem's question, like I always do.

It seems like there's many things that could be discussed, yet you pick this one thing and go after it like pitbull. Then you fos, to make it look not so serious. I am quite suspicious of certian FOSs. Scum can be like, "look, I was suspicious of this person back on d1."

Although the major thing is that you failed to unvote your random vote to FOS someone. Why would you find your random vote more useful than a vote on someone who doesn't seem very town oriented.

I don't necessarily agree with this post, but that's pretty much the answer.

I'll go ahead and try to jumpstart something by discussing the invalid points to the attack.

Give me a choice between an orange, banana, and apple. I'll choose the banana, and I'm suspicious for not choosing the apple or orange? I find that argument contrived since STD is attacking DoS for picking one "thing" out of a reservoir of many other "things".
A better argument would be that DoS prioritized an insignificant issue over a more important one. That would make a far better argument since it implies actual scumminess.

Let see. You didn't get it the first time SO. Not agreeing with you. That means that they are not arguing for or against you.

Disagreeing with you. That means that they are actively against you.

These are not labels for specific people. Not at all, actually.

That makes a whole lot more sense.

While I'm at it, I'm going to throw a couple of foses since I found those particular people suspicious after a reread.

fos TCS, CES, kalei

[chaotic_diablo]

FoS: C_D

for doing nothing but playing the victim and being suspicious of anything that moves.

"Doing nothing but", is an exaggeration. It is always false to an extent.
I'm questioning why my bandwagon isn't the most important. Obviously it means there are some people who don't think it is the way to go. I want to have some information on why. If you feel that my bandwagon is the most important, then why do some people disagree?
I'm keeping my range of suspects reasonable. Especially on day one. You can't possibly think that there will only be one scum? You may like to have two or three suspects, but that's just the minimum amount.

Not only was activity waning, but you're trying to pick my post out as scum without reviewing the content. From your orginal accusation, my case on LG was BS. Now you're saying that any move I make is suspicious. Add on the fact that you already have a vote on me means you're trying to distract us from something. I would fos you, but I have already done so.

Not quite, but if you decide that the banana is the end all topic that you are going to discuss, it will raise red flags in my eyes. It's kind of like strawmanning. I saw DoS go after one thing to make him look like he was participating and to justify a vote in the future (or to distance with his scum partner by not voting him). My point is more on the fact that out of this selection (which seems contrived, like he picked a banana not because he liked them, but because he liked the person offering it to him).

Ah, the explanation that gets tagged on when it wasn't orginally provided. Good point.

My arguement was multifaceted, thank you very much. You've completely ignored possible distancing, the disbelief I had, strawmanning, and the failure to unvote a random vote to FOS someone, which in my opinion, is the most damning.

I didn't ignore them, I completely acknowledged them as valid points. I stated that I would discuss the one that I felt was questionable and invalid. It's kind of useless for me to state in the same posts that "Oh! I agree with the other points though."

This looks like the sort of thing scum would say about a buddy being wagoned Day 1. I'd change my vote to C_D, but I don't think it's in the best interests of the town to have someone at -1 so early in the day.

Oh right, so someone else does somthing you find scummy, so I'm the one you go after. Not particularly logical to me. I have 4 votes on me, another vote would place me at -2. If the vote count is right, someone has a double vote.

[chaotic_diablo]

Is anyone going to do anything? Seriously. The last time I tried to start discussion, TheJiveMachine jumps on me and tries to take advantage. Whichever way I see it, I'm going to get the short-end of the stick. I'll explain my three foses.

TCS
Post 16: He pulls the newbie card to save scott.
I feel hypocritical for picking out TCS's self-vote, but I'll let others interpret it the way they want.
Post 62: Wow, playstyle. Not going here since TCS does bring a semi-valid point.
Post 80: Wagon hopping.
Post 129: Good points by Mr. Flay.
Post 135: Great, more wagon hopping.

CES
He's done nothing but wagon hop. No contribution, no reasoning.

Kalie
Same as CES. Nothing but wagon hopping.

As you can see, I'm fosing literally because two out of the three players haven't "moved" at all.

[chaotic_diablo]

C_D, how do you feel about Jive Machine?

I didn't really take a look at him because OMGUSery (MOS said wiki was outdated) was something that I wanted to avoid. After a reread, he's clearly scummy enough to be over livingod.

1. He's a hypocrite.

It could be I'm just being paranoid, but on Day 1 it pays to be paranoid just to start discussion.

FoS: C_D

for doing nothing but playing the victim and

being suspicious of anything that moves.

2. Plays DoS in post 93 by attacking only one aspect of my argument.

No, YOU'RE dancing on the WIFOM line with your self vote. WIFOM = Baad.

I'll have to give you that. I'm definitely WIFOM dancing on the line.

Wow, that really helps the town.

Unvote
Vote C_D

I had to force him to bring more of his argument up.

3. Ignores my other arguments

A) Saying that posting jokes is scummier than posting nothing.
B) Only going after LG for this. If you're so opposed to "contentless joking, why did you both intially and continuously attack only one of at least three or 4 people who were doing it at the same time he was, all while you posted <i>nothing</i>?
C) Claiming that LG is trying to appeal to authority. WTF?
D) Trying to justify a self vote by saying that it is totally defensive WIFOM and that there's nothing wrong with it. Double WTF?

A. fritzler-like players are scummy.
B. I already explained beforehand. What did he do? Ignore it.
C. I gave reasoning, lots of reasoning. It's far from craplogic. Exaggerated would have been a better word if he wanted to criticize it.
D. I didn't say it was "okay", I conceded and gave livingod that point on WIFOM. Then Jive goes on about "defensive WIFOM" that has no meaning.

4. Carp(fishy) Logic

There's a difference between commenting, FoSing, and voting. A lack of willingness to vote anyone is saying that you don't want anyone to think you have strong convictions about anyone, and I agree it's a very defensive move.

Fishy fishy. Trying to fish for something that works. This statement isn't true, and considering how I've been playing, it's completely false. Then he tries to justify it through means such as "no one agrees with CD" or that "since I didn't back down, CD is wrong". Then he goes off and says "it doesn't matter if CD proves his point, it's still scummy because he did it". This is exactly what DoS was talking about.

D) Proven by who? You?

This statement really bothers me. It almost seems to me like even if C_D has proven his point, which I like his evidence more than yours right now, you won't care specifically because it is him.

FoS:TheJiveMachine

Doesn't seem very town oriented to me.

unvote

vote TheJiveMachine

[chaotic_diablo]

Then he goes off and says "it doesn't matter if CD proves his point, it's still scummy because he did it". This is exactly what DoS was talking about.

D) Proven by who? You?

This statement really bothers me. It almost seems to me like even if C_D has proven his point, which I like his evidence more than yours right now, you won't care specifically because it is him.

FoS:TheJiveMachine

Doesn't seem very town oriented to me.

Did you even read the conversation I had with DoS about this?

Your conversation mostly stated that my point was "unproven" due to not having any support. Later, you state that your point wasn't that I hadn't proved it, but it's because I was "arrogant". That implies that even if I had proven my point, simple arrogance makes my point worthless. Your entire conversation is based on how I hadn't "proved' my point, then you come up discard that and come up with a personal attack to devalue my actions even more.

If he had proved it, I would have conceded that he was right. But from my point of view, he didn't come close. I wasn't saying it wouldn't have mattered if he did prove it, I was saying it was incredibly arrogant of him to say he proved a point when he was apparently the only person who thought so.

You aren't starting discussion though, just trying to divert attention from yourself.

Any move I make can be classified as "diverting" attention. A valid attack on someone, a defense for something unjust, whatever. Tell me, what isn't a diversion? making myself look scummy? Making a defense on a nonexistant argument? You didn't even bother explaining to STD why people are on my bandwagon.

Starting discussion only requires people to respond. Since I

did

get someone to respond and attempt to keep it up, I don't see how I'm not trying to start discussion.

[chaotic_diablo]

1. He's a hypocrite.

It could be I'm just being paranoid, but on Day 1 it pays to be paranoid just to start discussion.

FoS: C_D

for doing nothing but playing the victim and

being suspicious of anything that moves.

You aren't starting discussion though, just trying to divert attention from yourself.

Oh, and you're trying to divert attention of yourself as well. Try more "defending youself" rather than "attacking your attacker".

[chaotic_diablo]

Your conversation mostly stated that my point was "unproven" due to not having any support.

Yep.

Later, you state that your point wasn't that I hadn't proved it, but it's because I was "arrogant".

100% wrong. I said you hadn't proved your point and were arrogant for assuming you had. Do you even read my posts?

That's what you said? That changes everything. My vote is now reinforced. Personality doesn't play into scumness. Using it to justify a case isn't worth scrap.

Now, are you going to respond to my other points or not? You've been attacking one specific case for quite a while. In addition, you seemingly drop them when it seems convenient to you. As a result, I'm going to go back and force you to answer my previous arguments. Now I'm going to "prove my point". I can't prove a point without getting a chance to do so.

Why do we vote? Do we vote to twiddle our thumbs? If there is no reason to vote, then why should I? I've already shown that I can show an opinion just by FOSing someone. What is a FOS for? It's to place suspicion. Can't you differentiate between the functions of a vote and a FOS?

2. Plays DoS in post 93 by attacking only one aspect of my argument.

3. Ignores my other arguments

Any move I make can be classified as "diverting" attention. A valid attack on someone, a defense for something unjust, whatever. Tell me, what isn't a diversion? making myself look scummy? Making a defense on a nonexistant argument? You didn't even bother explaining to STD why people are on my bandwagon.

Starting discussion only requires people to respond. Since I did get someone to respond and attempt to keep it up, I don't see how I'm not trying to start discussion.

Oh, and you're trying to divert attention of yourself as well. Try more "defending youself" rather than "attacking your attacker".

[chaotic_diablo]

Yeah, STD answered livingod's post, so I'll answer the one that he hadn't.

The remark about being arrogant is just there to uncover your fallacious reasoning (i.e. assuming to have proven your point). His real point wasn't you being arrogant, it was you assuming something that wasn't true. You seem to use technicalities in your above argument while missing the real point, and also ignoring TJM's rebuttal until now, when it has been brought to you on a silver platter.

That makes far more sense. You win some, you lose some.

A Lurkers are scummier
B I gave the same reaction that you did for the selfvote accusation (call it ignoring if you will).
C Lots of reasoning, besides the fact that it's Day 1.
D You're right, you were WIFOMy.

A. Then it's a difference of opinion. I don't like cluttering the thread with crap. You dislike nonparticipation. Between the two, cluttering the thread with crap has more substance to base a lynch on.
B. Alright, ignoring it is.
C. Anyone can state that there's little to go on Day One. That is the biggest complaint. Stop sitting on your ass and using it as an excuse to act scummy.
D. Yes, I WIFOMed, and I will take it the blame for it.

You state that your three suspects are TCS CES and Kalei, yet your vote is still on TJM

I also stated that TJM was a suspect as well. Clearly, you missed post 21.

[chaotic_diablo]

CD voted himself, and then basically started injecting himself into pointless arguments (over scot's calling for a random number, over livingod's pooky-imitation) and started dishing out FOSes. Basically tryign to draw attention to himself. Or, as my mom would say "Bein' ornary'. Then, though, he jumps on the people who responded in kind, escalating stuff....

Scot was called out for his random number and was fosed for it. From that point on, it ceased to be pointless. I can deal with random voting, however foses are not random.

Please specify who I've jumped on and the conditions of it. There are many types of "jumping", such as wagon, voting, and etc. One of the argument against me was that I was too "afraid" to hop on someone.

Basically - and I think this was mentioned earlier, he's playing a very loud but superficial game, seeming to be involved and g etting votes but not really 'doing' anything for the town. I'm not sure what his real intentions are, but this reminds me hugely of another game (Which of course has no relationship to this) where one player baited another into saying that he was being anti-town, and then saying that the other player was 'too town' for calling him on it, and it turned into this debilitating back and forth cycle until we lynched him. He was scum, by the way. >And that just strikes me as what C_D is doing , here, starting rather popintless, space consuming arguments that will eventually (if it dfoesn't get him lynched) get everyone sick of him to the point of ignoring him.

Does this mean he's scum? No clue, hoenstly, because it's not right to use one game as a template for another, but that's almost exactly what this reminds me of.

You referenced metagaming then defeated your own point by stating that it doesn't prove that I'm scum.

I have to say if C_D didn't want this attention on himself he shouldn't have been drawing it towards himself... but then again, like StD said, none of the arguments against him are 'real' and will probably be dropped.

If I didn't want attention to myself, then I shouldn't have drawn it. It's true that I didn't want it, but you are assuming that I was "intentionally" trying to get it. That is incorrect.

DoS you come in second place as scummy , to me, especially your "I don't care if he has proven his point, if nobody else believes it, it hasn't been proven"... It took a reread or two to understand where you are coming from, and that seems... weird. It's like saying the earth is flat, and even if someone says it's round, you don't care unless someone else agrees...

Huh? Could you quote that post?

[chaotic_diablo]

I'd like to hear TSQ's breakdown.

[chaotic_diablo]

I already gave one, originally in post: 232, and he continued to make less and less sense in the subsequent posts. All there is left is to respond to his very latest defense, which I have thusfar not had time to do.

Your orginal was your attack, and I thought your "breakdown" post was the one with the words "I'll break it down".

That post is off in a couple things. I'll break it down after the 28th, because I have two big tests then, and won't be able to contribute much until I am done studying for them.

The argument isn't over until all points are made or when someone refuses to go further.

I find it odd that DoS and C_D both 'missed' TSQ's breakdown post and also happen to be the two I most suspect. It could be coincidence, but it doesn't alleviate the scummy vibes I'm getting from either of them.

It depends on what "breakdown" is referring to.

You are in the same situation as DoS, I find it odd that you're stalling. If you really want to save yourself, then make a defense. I had a nice post with quoted posts for you to respond, yet you're are obviously trying to avoid them. It's extremely scummy to wait for another bandwagon to overshadow your own.

[chaotic_diablo]

I think there are enough points to make both candidates seem scummy. Since both are at -2, I think a claim is in order for both of them. I prefer TJM to go first.

[chaotic_diablo]

FOS: Remussaidow, C_D, and skruffs, for various reasons.

And those reasons are?

[chaotic_diablo]

I FOSed Remus and C_D for asking for TWO claims, which seems like, to me, like something scum would do in order to make the best of a bad situation. I think what the town needs to do today is decide which of the two they are comfortable with, and then run that person up, and get THEM to claim. We certainly don;t need dueling claims to confuse.

The same applies to you. We certainly didn't need dueling bandwagons to confuse.

[chaotic_diablo]

At the time you brought the bandwagon, there was already another wagon with 5 votes that isn't based on randomness. That is currently a "full-fledged" bandwagon. Starting another bandwagon is a distraction since it gives the pressured leeway and a chance to escape. In addition, it can be argued that you might also be his partner, hence you didn't find TJM scummy.

You stated that two claims will confuse the town. However, two wagons are potentially more confusing and distracting. There are more arguments, more points, and more opinions to take into account. How in the world can two claims possibly be confusing?

If you feel that getting two claims is too 'confusing', then let's get TJM's claim first.

[chaotic_diablo]

Fine whatever, if you feel that a second bandwagon is good for town, then go ahead and continue it. Just get along and get TJM to claim already. I'm not about to get into a 2-3 page argument on ethics and crap.

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't believe TJM's claim given that his name does not coincide with the theme of the game. However, I'm cautious about one of those out of sync roles that are used to prevent a mass name claiming. I'm keeping my vote on him.

[chaotic_diablo]

I think we should lynch TJM.

1. The claim is untestable. Having an untestable role forces the cop to investigate. Since scum already know the result, it forces the cop to waste an investigation. With a guilty investigation, the cop

may

come out the next day and scum will know who it is. There are many possibilities and reasons for an untestable claim, but I think it's common knowledge that untestable claims are scummy.

2. TJM claimed a survivor. As a survivor, TJM is not obligated to help in the search of scum. If he is alive near end game, then he will do what he will in order to win. This might include backstabbing the town so he can win with scum. Not only is this a danger to us, it gives scum an advantage we don't want. While I don't really think backstabbing may come into play, it still represents a possible danger to the town. If TJM is scum, then a survivor is a great cover role for not helping us.

3. The only reason TJM is alive is because of baseless theories on the theme. The argument that his role is too ridiculous to be false is crap logic. I'm going with his role is ridiculous so it's false.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm going to hang back to my original suspicon. I suspected TJM for his defense on livingod, so I have a strong hunch that livingod is scum as well. He's not looking townish in my eyes with his latest post either. Skruffs would be my second choice.

vote livingod

[chaotic_diablo]

Woah, four votes on livingod. Quick wagon, not that I dislike it.

I feel stupid, but who's shea? I'm guessing it's My. Flay through the posts, but I just want to be sure.

[chaotic_diablo]

Why does TSQ get a free pass in MR. Stoofer's eyes for pushing so extremely hard for a DOS lynch, whereas I get the evil eye for agreeing? Why does Mr. Flay get the credit of being 'clever enough' to know when to potentially bus his buddy, but I don't? WHy is he insinuating that a claimed mason is 'potentially' a scum buddy with lynched scum?

I'm not Mr.Stoofer, but I might be able to help.
TSQ pushed DoS hard because TSQ thought DoS was scum. Pushing to lynch someone you believe to be scum isn't scummy. You loosely translated statement that TSQ was pushing for a mislynch is inaccurate, since it's scummy only if TSQ knowingly does so, which you have not proven.

Your actions in particular tried to make an unbelievable claim, believable. You pushed for DoS, then tried to make a series of poor arguments on how TJM's role could be valid and other such things.

Mr.Flay isn't receiving praise. He's receiving suspicion. Being clever enough means he could be scum who predicted the lynch result and conformed early in order to not appear suspicious. You don't get credit because... you're not appearing clever at the moment, not that you want to attract suspicion.