Newbie #358 - Big Trouble in Little Rome (Game Over!)

[Scarecrow]

In fact, after these blatant misinterpretations,

1) Why did SC not mention suspicion of BM at first instance? 2) Why did SC jump from Jack to BM?

I'm going to

vote: vollkan

, maker of straw men, putting him at -1.

[Battle Mage]

complete lies. you also OMGUSed someone to -1.
BRAVO SCUMBAG.
someone on the Vollkan wagon, unvote quickly and move onto SC instead.

Yes it does. Your

only

reason for voting me was that I "attacked and voted" BM for something he hadn't done yet. I have done neither of those two things.

All I did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive."

Purely

a statement of fact. Nothing more.

[Mr. Flay]

Seventh Vote Count of Day One:

vollkan - 3 (kabenon007, Jack, Scarecrow)

Scarecrow - 2 (Battle Mage, vollkan)

Not voting - 2 (Dr. Doom, Dio)

With seven alive, four votes will lynch.

[Jack]

Scarecrow hasn't done anything suspicious.

Wouldn't be surprised if vollkan and BM are scum together.

[kabenon007]

Wow, what a turn of events! I leave for one day, and you all go on and get up to a -1 without me. I feel left out...
Oh well, I don't think I'll leave the vollkan bandwagon. SC's vote reaks of OMGUS, but I will not remove my vote, seeing as how I put it there on purpose. Just, think before anyone hammers.

[Jack]

complete lies. you also OMGUSed someone to -1.
BRAVO SCUMBAG.
someone on the Vollkan wagon, unvote quickly and move onto SC instead.

Yes it does. Your

only

reason for voting me was that I "attacked and voted" BM for something he hadn't done yet. I have done neither of those two things.

All I did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive."

Purely

a statement of fact. Nothing more.

Your vote on scarecrow is omgus on a baseless pretext, and yet you want us to switch from voting the scummiest player to voting scarecrow?

It's not scummy to put someone who is really scummy at -1 on page 8, and there is clearly plenty of reason so it's not omgus.

fos:battle mage

[vollkan]

Okay, I am at -1. I have Jack and kab's vote for me accusing kabenon (I presume) and I have SC's because OMGUS. I can't see SC unvoting me at this stage; Jack also seems fairly adamant that I am the most suspicious. If anyone is going to unvote then it will be kab. Alternatively, since BM suspects SC, a lynching vote is going to come from Doom or Dio. So, basically, this post is directed at kab, Doom & Dio hopefully so I can prevent this lynch.

Re: my accusation of kab
As I said, it is how I reason things through. Kab struck me as having some inconsistencies so I questioned him for it. Aggressive, yes, but I wanted to see his explanations. On the whole, his defence was fairly solid and it allayed most of my suspicion.

Re: SC v BM

See 170 for why I voted SC. But let me quote something from SC again:

I think it is that I said he was a bit aggressive, which I don't see the problem with, because it's obviously true. I think his main "reason" is that I backed up my statement with evidence that had not been available at the time of the "accusation" (Which in truth had only been an observation, but he's blown it all out of proportion now).

So, it's an observation not an accusation. Fine, I'll accept that since it is only a semantic difference. Here, he makes admits to making his observation with evidence that had not been available at the time. The point is not whether SC "attacked and voted" or "made an observation". The point is that he made it WITHOUT EVIDENCE and he admitted it. I fail to see how SC could make an observation based on evidence he had not yet gotten. I mean, that really is complete nonsense.

Jack says

Scarecrow hasn't done anything suspicious.

Explain to me, Jack, why the admitted lack of evidence is so entirely lacking in suspicion. When I accused kab, I gave my examples (as I have now). SC has made observations with no basis and then retrospectively claimed them to be correct. If I am lynched because of my accusing of kab, it ignores the fact that SC has made his observations with an acknowledged lack of evidence. That, if nothing else, should persuade someone to unvote me; at least for further discussion if nothing else.

and SC says

Yes it does. Your only reason for voting me was that I "attacked and voted" BM for something he hadn't done yet. I have done neither of those two things.

All I did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive." Purely a statement of fact. Nothing more.

Dodging my main accusation against you. All you did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive", true. But you did so without evidence, as you acknowledged. That is the fundamental point to my accusation and you have dodged it.

You also accused me of "blatant misrepresentation" when I stated:

1) Why did SC not mention suspicion of BM at first instance? 2) Why did SC jump from Jack to BM?

Er, SC @ 136 makes an observation about Jack. Mentions "several scummy things". No mention of BM
Jack rebuts @ 137
SC @ 138 "BattleMage is very aggressive"
To me, it looks like he tries the "observation" tactic against Jack, fails, moves onto BM.

Jack's most recent post is, I think, addressed by what I wrote above.

In conclusion, even if you are suspicious of me read what I have said (here and in 170) and make up your own mind. SC's actions are highly irregular. If it weren't for my accusations against kab, I don't think my comments @ SC would be being taken with such suspicion.

Unless someone can explain why SC's observing without evidence is totally fine, then I really think we need to discuss more before making a lynch.

[Scarecrow]

Vollkan, something you don't seem to understand is that I had, at the time of my original statement, plenty "evidence" to support my claim that BM is aggressive. The point about his subsequent post simply added to the body of proof.


In addition, when I believed that Jack had put a player at -1, then I believed that BM's vote was entirely justified. However, when I learned that Jack had only placed the second vote, my opinion about BM changed due to the fact that while voting some one for a very scummy, almost baseless vote that puts someone at -1 so soon in the day is good cause for a vote on said person, putting someone at -2 if most definitely not good cause to

do exactly the same thing.

Thus, my subsequent suspicions of Jack, and then BM are mutually exclusive. It would make no sense to entertain both at the same time.

[kabenon007]

Gentlemen, vollkan is trying to save his skin now. Take a look at his last post against me:

Kabenon, you haven't addressed the major issues raised by me. Instead you have given me half-defenses and tried to criticise me with semantic attacks. That was the sort of information I wanted in the first place, I just had to go the long way round to get it. Noted.

That is his very last post against me. In none of his other posts does he admit defeat, or that I defended myself well in any fashion. In fact, he states that I gave him "half-defenses."

Yet in these last few posts, this came up:

Re: my accusation of kab
As I said, it is how I reason things through. Kab struck me as having some inconsistencies so I questioned him for it. Aggressive, yes, but I wanted to see his explanations. On the whole, his

defence was fairly solid

and it allayed most of my suspicion.

But his last post said that my defenses were half-defenses. It is a blatant lie. My only conclusion is that vollkan is trying to shift blame in a different direction. My vote stands.

[vollkan]

But his last post said that my defenses were half-defenses. It is a blatant lie. My only conclusion is that vollkan is trying to shift blame in a different direction. My vote stands.

Or that my comments made at the end of my last accusation against you, kab, were written to try and prolong the discussion to learn as much as possible. Kab, your defences were solid, I was just trying to see if your semantic attacks were leading anywhere (they didn't). Thus, why I ended my accusations.

That is his very last post against me. In none of his other posts does he admit defeat, or that I defended myself well in any fashion. In fact, he states that I gave him "half-defenses."

Kab, of course I was never going to say "You win, my accusations have been disproven". That would achieve nothing, since I still don't know whether you are scum or not. I thought the smartest thing to do would be to maintain the pressure on you whilst easing off on the accusations, that way I am not making baseless claims but I am not potentially dropping suspicion of a scum.

SC's accusations/observations as I have explained are suspicious. I know BM's behaviour was suspicious also, I have never denied that for a second. My point is that SC made references to minor things and then relied upon them to conjure proof of BM's aggression. I agree, BM's responses were aggressive but SC's tactic of making observations without/with minimal evidence and then using subsequent evidence to justify in retropsect is just plain suspicious.

At this stage, I can't see any of the players who have their votes on me unvoting. Doom or Dio, if you need me to explain any of my reasoning further ask.

[Dr. Doom]

First off. What the hell? There is no reason to vote for Scarecrow. He just said that he thought BM is aggressive. Well, it turned out true, methinks.

The lynch -1 is scaring me. I'll try to put some thoughts about it down.

Dio

Say something substantial (and don't you dare and cut day 1 short by hammering volkan). Do you want vollkan to be lynched? Why yes? Why not? Who is the person you want to see lynched the most at the moment (apart from vollkan)? Who is the person you want to see lynched the least (apart from vollkan or yourself)?
(Ie, tell us what you think about three other players (one of them being vollkan) in this game).

Battlemage

Your vote is, like, Uber-scummy. What the hell is your voting based on???
Oh, and you too: Don't you dare to hammer vollkan. there has not been enough discussion at the moment.
I don't really have a read on you, so plaese:
What do you think about me?
What would you say if Dio hammered vollkan?
Would it surprise you if vollkan came up scum?
Why yes? Why not?

vollkan

1) Wether you know it or not, but you use several things that you accuse others for yourself. Some of the accusations have merit (appeal to emotion), others don't (saying that you agree with someone else, for example, is not anti-town or does not tribute anything to discussion, but it is a good way of letting people know what you think about certain things/persons. Makes it harder for scum to hide).

2) You often repeat that if I had not intervened, we would now know (or have a good sense) whether kabenon is scum or not. Well, there are certain counterpoints to be made:

What you said is that if I had kept silent, things would have gone better, right? Well, this would have allowed me (id I were scum) to just sit back, relax, and lurk for my hearts desire, while the town (assuming you two are townies) fight iot out between each other. This is not good at all - everything that promotes discussion and participation by all players is good, the reverse is bad.

3) BM had made some aggressive posts before scarecrow was replaced in, and that he did not note it in the second post he made might be because he did not yet read the whole thread through? Plus, because its just an observation, not an accuse or even a vote, it does not need so much support. If SC had voted for BM in that post and than later said:"Look, now he is aggressive!", it would have been an unfounded vote (and thus scummy), but the way it had happened, there is no reason to vote for Scarecrow (looking at you,

BM

, as well).

And no, Scarecrows behavior is not highly irregular. And no, if the whole kabenon/you thing had not happened before, it would not make your accusations any better.

Vollkan, your last post is strange. I can't follow your reasons at all.
For example, it does achieve something iof you say that someones defense is solid. Everything a player thinks needs to be put into the thread - that way, if you die, we have your thoughts to refer to as a confirmed townie/scummer. Look, the thing is, the town is handicapped because it has less info than the mafia. Do not further that handicap by not saying stuff! If you think that someones defense is solid, say so! If you think taht someone is right, say so! It can only help the town.

Plus, never ever give up on people. Defend agaisnt everything for as long as you can, because if you are a townie, you don not want to get lynched, since that would put the town (ie, you) in Lylo tomorrow.

Jack

What do you think about the fact that Vollkan could be hammered by me, but we haven't really heard from Dio? What do you think about Dio? What about me?

You had two scum pairs on your radar in the course of this game:
kabenon/vollkan
and
BM/vollkan

What changed your mind from one to the other? Why are you so sure that vollkan is a scummer?

kabenon

What do you think about the fact that Vollkan could be hammered by me, but we haven't really heard from Dio? What do you think about Dio? What about me?
You claim that he lies, but that does not sound really good.
Please, restate your reasons

Scarecrow

I don't really get a read on you, so could you please answer these questions:
What would you say if I were to hammer vollkan now?
What if Dio would hammer him?
Why did you put him at -1?
What would you do if BM hammered vollkan?
How would the alignment of vollkan chnage your reacion?


Do you want vollkan to be lynched? Why yes? Why not? Who is the person you want to see lynched the most at the moment (apart from vollkan)? Who is the person you want to see lynched the least (apart from vollkan or yourself)?
(Ie, tell us what you think about three other players (one of them being vollkan) in this game).

Thanks!

Okay, soem stuff from me apart from asking people stuff:

Who I would lynch:

Well, actually noone, since Dio has not said nearly enough to make me decide, but since I have to choose someone, it would be vollkan. His points against people are really strange and sometimes, he uses the stuff that he accuses others of himself. For example, he claims he never uses certain words or figures of speech, because they are useless, but look at the language he uses:

I don't use them because I prefer to rely solely on reasoning and explanations in my defence, rather than trying to fumble around with useless, empty phrases.

Plus he repeatedly (four times, at least) said that not posting is/would be good for the town (the first time was when kabenon said that he agrees with Jack, the second and third time was when he said that if I had not interfered, we would now know (or have a good call) about whether kabenon is town or not, and the fourth time now is with the defense thing).

2) Who I would not want to be lynched (apart from myself):

Hm. Another tough one. Jack seems protown, but erratic. Difficult to read him, plus he says not enough for my liking. He is fast to point at possible scumpairs - that seems odd, but teh longer I think about it, the less scummy it seems.

On the others I have either no read on (Dio, Scarecrow), or they have some oddities about them (kabenon), or they smell outright strange, borderline scummy (BM, vollkan).

[Dr. Doom]

*

scarecrow

,
of course....

[Battle Mage]

it always bothers me when people say stuff like that, because if Vollkan comes up scum now, its going to be damn obvious that you his scumbuddy. On the other hand, if he comes up town, you are presumably scum with Scarecrow.

@Dr. Doom-the votes on SC have been explained numerous times. your comment is as flawed as his, because he accused me of something before i had actually committed to it, which then led me to commit it, and then his original statement looks good, when in fact it was stupid.

im not sure either way about Vollkan, but it seems foolish to lynch anyone other than SC or Jack today

Scarecrow hasn't done anything suspicious.

Wouldn't be surprised if vollkan and BM are scum together.

[kabenon007]

kabenon
What do you think about the fact that Vollkan could be hammered by me, but we haven't really heard from Dio? What do you think about Dio? What about me?
You claim that he lies, but that does not sound really good.
Please, restate your reasons

Alright, let's start at the top. With the fact of the hammer by you, I can't rightly say. I think that vollkan is scum, hence the vote on him. But I don't know what you are thinking on vollkan's scumminess, if you are certain he's scum, want to wait, whatever. The reason that my vote is staying is because I started the votes against vollkan, and it is not my vote that put him at -1.
My opinion of Dio is difficult to say, seeing as how he hasn't posted much, and what he has posted has not had any merit or value whatsoever. So I have no opinion on him, mostly just annoyance that he hasn't posted.

As for what I think about you...
So far in this game, you have done nothing to cause me to suspect you anymore than anybody else. I mean, you could be scum, but have yet to do anything to arouse my suspicions, so you are as innocent as anyone, to me at least.

My accusation that vollkan lies was basically directed at his post where he claims that I made a solid defense. Because he attacked my defenses, calling them half-defenses, I feel he is not taking time to go back and re-read his own posts, because it does not make sense to call my defenses half and then later call them solid with no apparent change of mind.

[Scarecrow]

Right, here we go.

b]Scarecrow[/b]

I don't really get a read on you, so could you please answer these questions:
What would you say if I were to hammer vollkan now?

I would think that you were scum, because hammering now would be folly for anyone, although I would be very confused, because you are obviously an experienced player, and should no better than to hammer now as either scum or town.

What if Dio would hammer him?

I don't have much of a read on Dio, so I would of course have to go back through older posts to analyze him further, but such an action would definitely ping my scumdar, because at this time no one should be doing any hammering; there has not been enough discussion.

Why did you put him at -1?

Well, I of course believe him to be scum, because of the way he continually misrepresents my actions and the way he acts with regard to BM. The reason I felt I should put him at -1 is that it would most definitely promote discussion, something I thought we did not have enough of, and I did not really expect him to be hammered, which is of course the obvious risk, because only a fool (Scum, mos likely) would hammer at this point.

What would you do if BM hammered vollkan?

My reaction would depend on whether vollkan turned out to be scum and what BM's stated reason for hammering was, but I would become even more suspicious of BM because he is experienced, and he seems to agree with most, if not all, of vollkan's sentiments. I would suspect a bussing.

How would the alignment of vollkan chnage your reacion?

Ah. Here we are.

If vollkan was scum, I would tend to suspect BM, for bussing. If vollkan was innocent my suspicioun of BM would have been lowered, because I would expect a scum BM to use vollkan's innocence to try to implicate me, for example.

Do you want vollkan to be lynched? Why yes? Why not?

I do not yet know if I want vollkan to be lynched. I would be very uncomfortable lynching him with only the information available to us know, however, if he continues to look scummy to me I would not mind eventually seeing him take the noose.

Who is the person you want to see lynched the most at the moment (apart from vollkan)?

Well, my gut reaction is to want to lynch BM, but I don't know how much of that is an OMGUS urge. At the moment, I don't really have any proof of BM's "scumminess", only aggression, which is not necessarily a scummy characteristic.

Who is the person you want to see lynched the least (apart from vollkan or yourself)?

You, at the moment, simply because your most recent post has looked very pro-town, and scum or not, you are an experienced player, and as such are more likely to contribute more to the game than the average noobie.

You are town by default, in my eyes, because you look the least scummy of all the players.

I don't have much of a read on our players, because I haven't really been playing this game very long.

[Dr. Doom]

it always bothers me when people say stuff like that, because if Vollkan comes up scum now, its going to be damn obvious that you his scumbuddy. On the other hand, if he comes up town, you are presumably scum with Scarecrow.

Pardon?
So, if vollkan comes up scum, I'm his scumbuddy. If he comes up town, I'm Scarecrows Scumbuddy. Yet it is foolish to lynch anyone else but Scarecrow or vollkan? If I'm scum anyway, wouldn't it be much better to lynch me instead of someone who might be town?
I think I misunderstodd you there. please clarify.

What would you say if Dio hammered vollkan?

Well?

I agree with you that if kabenon007 had based a vote, or a full scale attack on you on the flimsy things he had, you would be voting him rightly (and I'd probably vote alongside you, though I'm reluctant to vote in general).
But he just said that he thought you were aggressive, and you reacted as if he had voted for you and launched a full scale attack on you, which he hadn't. That strikes me as odd.

With the fact of the hammer by you, I can't rightly say.

Oh, come on. You can say something about it. Imagine if I would say: "Well, obviously, vollkan tried to accuse kabenon for no good reasons, made bad arguments, and then tried to pass the suspicion along to scarecrow" and voted him. What would you think about me then?

The reason that my vote is staying is because I started the votes against vollkan, and it is not my vote that put him at -1.

What do you mean? That you should keep your vote on him because you were the first one to vote for him? hu? What kind of reason is that? And sure its not your vote that put him on -1, but if you don't want a lynch to happen, you should unvote regardless. If you are confident with a lynch, let your vote rest there. It is not someone else's responsibility if a lynch happens or not. You are contributing your part.
If you are unhappy with your vote, take it off. If you are happy with it, by all means, leave it on and don't find excuses for leaving it on, but give reasons. To clarify: You gave reasons to vote for him and why you vote for him, but the above sentence sounded like an excuse why you are not moving your vote. So, why do you find an excuse for that?

as well as aggressively responding to my off-hand comment.

I think that is the sentence BM and vollkan are having problems with, and I agree to a certain extent. However, as it was just an observation, and Off-hand comment, I'm very surprised at the backlash scarecrow got for it from BM and vollkan.

I would think that you were scum, because hammering now would be folly for anyone, although I would be very confused, because you are obviously an experienced player, and should no better than to hammer now as either scum or town.

Im flattered. This is my second game of Mafia online, and I lost the first one (trusted someone who was scum).

If vollkan was scum, I would tend to suspect BM, for bussing. If vollkan was innocent my suspicioun of BM would have been lowered, because I would expect a scum BM to use vollkan's innocence to try to implicate me, for example.

Pardon? I don't think I got that right. If BM would hammer vollkan and vollkan would turn out innocent, what would you think about BM? For what reasons?

Okay, until this point, I liked your post a lot, but then it went downhill...
You say you do not know if you want vollkan be lynched, but then say that you would be uncomfortable with a lynch now. So you don't want him to be lynched?
[To avoid confusion: Of course I'm talking about the now, with the things present at the moment. If Jack does something genuinely scummy, for example, I would of course want to lynch him, but that is nothing that has happened yet, so I would not want to lynch Jack.]
You dodged the "Why yes/Why not"-part.
Hrrm, I don't like your answer to the last question, because it reeks of "buddying up", plus if I'm an experienced Player and scum, it would be in the best interest for town to get rid of me, because I would (probably) be much better at deceiving and leading around new players than a new player would be. So killing me off would be very wise.

[Dr. Doom]

Oh, and thank you for answereing these questions.

[Jack]

Jack
What do you think about the fact that Vollkan could be hammered by me, but we haven't really heard from Dio? What do you think about Dio? What about me?

You had two scum pairs on your radar in the course of this game:
kabenon/vollkan
and
BM/vollkan

What changed your mind from one to the other? Why are you so sure that vollkan is a scummer?

I thought the whole argument between vollkan and kabenon was scummy because it seemed forced and contrived. But rereading I saw that vollkan argued like that with other people and that kabenon wasn't so bad.

I think vollkan is scum because his arguments are fake. This is the primary distinction between scum and town, town are genuinely looking for scum and scum are pretending. I get this vibe from vollkan like he's grasping at things to find suspicious in other people and contriving his arguments from there.

I think we'd learn as much from someone prematurely hammering as we would from putting him back at -2 and talking a bit more.

I also think that comment of BM from the start of your last point was directed at me. It's a funny comment because BM says that he doesn't like that kind of accusation and then makes one himself.

[Battle Mage]

i was talking to Jack. his post made him most likely to be scum, IF Vollkan comes up scum, however if Vollkan comes up town (as i suspect he will) Scarecrow is significantly more scummy.
BM

it always bothers me when people say stuff like that, because if Vollkan comes up scum now, its going to be damn obvious that you his scumbuddy. On the other hand, if he comes up town, you are presumably scum with Scarecrow.

Pardon?
So, if vollkan comes up scum, I'm his scumbuddy. If he comes up town, I'm Scarecrows Scumbuddy. Yet it is foolish to lynch anyone else but Scarecrow or vollkan? If I'm scum anyway, wouldn't it be much better to lynch me instead of someone who might be town?
I think I misunderstodd you there. please clarify.

[Dio]

[quote=Dr. Doom]Do you want vollkan to be lynched? Why yes? Why not? Who is the person you want to see lynched the most at the moment (apart from vollkan)? Who is the person you want to see lynched the least (apart from vollkan or yourself)? [/quote]

It seems that vollkan has done alot of lying, and contradicting himself. He says one thing at a time then completely goes against it in another post of his. It's not the type of playing style I like in a person at all, and it seems like a noobie scum mistake.

Apart from Vollkan I do believe it would be BM for his seemingly agressiveness so early on in the game(Against Jack, then SC).

I think all of us have done a scum tale while it may be SC against BM pulling some arguments out of nothing, or my own lurking in the background. As such, it's hard for me to say who shouldn't be killed. Why should I have to make that choice now? I don't think I will ever even be put into that situation because the evidence for a lynch will usually be there.

Now answer these question Dr. Doom. Why shouldn't I put my vote to Vollkan? So it kills him, he doesn't look that innocent in my eyes right now, and clearly others agree. And why not answer these questions yourself Dr. Doom: Who is the person you want to see lynched the most at the moment (apart from vollkan)? Who is the person you want to see lynched the least (apart from vollkan or yourself)? Why do you think you have the right to question us, without first telling us your thoughts on these very same questions?

[Dio]

And apparently BB Code doesn't work here like I'm used to it working.

[Battle Mage]

you need speechmarks around the name i think...

[Dio]

Actually I see now that I somehow missed the bottom part of your post and three of my questions have been answered. Sorry for that Dr. Doom.

[kabenon007]

Oh, come on. You can say something about it. Imagine if I would say: "Well, obviously, vollkan tried to accuse kabenon for no good reasons, made bad arguments, and then tried to pass the suspicion along to scarecrow" and voted him. What would you think about me then?

It is my opinion that vollkan is scum. It is our objective to vote out the scum, and so my vote is best placed on the scummiest person, therefore, vollkan. If you were to hammer, I would want to hear your reasoning behind the situation, because laying down the hammer can be a very serious issue. However, someone has to hammer and be hammered at some point, I just want people to be able to explain themselves so they can defend their choice to hammer.

[vollkan]

I wake up and look how much is written. I can't find any actual questions directed to me, so I will try and address what strikes me as relevant. If I miss something, though, do let me know.

@ Doom post 185 - addressing each of your points
1) Well, my views on the agreement thing basically stem from what happened in my previous (and first) game. To give you the gist, I was town. After some initial stuff, I began to make accusations against another player like I have here against kab. That, like here, got me suspected. THEN another player made some observations about who he thought were scum and I agreed. I then got accused of being his scumbuddy because I agreed to cover myself. I was lynched on day 2 and I would have been lynched on day 1 were it not for the scum hammering someone who claimed cop. Though, ironically, my accusing the scum got me further suspected. This has happened to me twice now (the first bit, not the cop part) I am interested to know, then, which is correct. Is agreeing suspicious or pro-town because this is just confusing me.

2) The thing is, by you questioning my motive, it derailed my checking of kab. I know we need discussion, it just frustrated me that I couldn't get my accusations down to see kab's response without it coming round to bite me.

3) To summarise: SC observes BM being aggressive, BM responds aggressively, SC says proof of BM being aggressive. I never said I liked the tone of BM's response, but I just got the impression that it was an attempt by SC to create an accusation. I may be wrong, most of you think I am, but my vote generated the discussion I wanted on it; and I would like some more.

Your next point about posting all thoughts. I knew that doing so would be a good idea. But my thoughts were "kab has made some good defences and also some dodgy ones (ie. the emotional appeals)". I was not convinced whether he was town or scum, so I didn't feel safe saying "he might be either" because it just makes me look like I made stupid accusations for no reason (though I am in that situation anyway). I wanted to keep the me v kab discussion going to try and learn more decisively.

In short, to state my thoughts bluntly: I thought kab's defences were solid but I didn't like his emotional appeals. Hopefully that helps somehow for if we get into Lylo.

@kab

My accusation that vollkan lies was basically directed at his post where he claims that I made a solid defense. Because he attacked my defenses, calling them half-defenses, I feel he is not taking time to go back and re-read his own posts, because it does not make sense to call my defenses half and then later call them solid with no apparent change of mind.

Hopefully, what I said above explains it.

I have to catch a bus now, but I will post later and address the things I missed. Coment on the above for now so I can answer later. If it is a bit rushed I apologise but, again, - bus.