Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[Elias_the_thief]

Now, onto Elias's most recent posts.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it screws me as town as well.

See the post above.

Um, alright. I dont understand whats going on with this point.

Thats your opinion. Given the two suspects, I chose Nelly based on the contribution issue as well as pressure value and painting myself scummily if nelly was scum. You continue to attack my vote as being decided on just one factor, despite my last post.

I addressed all 3 of them. I don't know what you are saying here.

This is in response to one of your first points, in which you said that you wouldnt use contribution as a rationale for choosing who to vote for. thats what this is in response to.

ERR! Wrong! This would be true if the reasons you claim I suspected Hermit were the actual reasons that I did. The reason I had for suspecting Hermit was his advocation of a lynch based on noncontribution. The reason I have repeatedly used to justify my vote for Nelly is that he was not contributing. But was I advocating his lynch, or was I attempting to pressure him? Oh yes, pressure, as I've been saying in every post so far. Do you actually read these, or do you just think voting and advocating lynches are synonomous?

Let's see Hermit's rationalisation of his vote:

Yes, I realize it's a scummy thing to do. No, this won't change my opinion. I don't want some lurker coming in at the eleventh hour to drop a stupid, senseless vote that the scum all jump on for the win, or even worse, stay hidden so that it's impossible for the active towns to get a lynch on the active scum for want of a single vote.

My vote comes off when he contributes something meaningful or he gets replaced. Not a moment before. Unless somebody does something very scummy.

Hermit CLEARLY says he would unvote once OJ posted. It was a pressure tactic. Even if he said OJ should be lynched, this makes it pretty clear he was willing to take it off should OJ respond to the pressure and post properly.

As such, the contradiction stands.

While it's true he made that post after someone pointed out his mistake, his original post is as follows:

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately

so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo. At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

So this is why there is no contradiction. While I have always stood by my vote was for pressure, and NEVER said it was for advocating a lynch, hermit only said that after his first post, which advocated him being lynched pretty strongly. It's wierd you try to pass off this off as his original stance, seeing as you've quoted his original post before.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

One vote is still pressuring. If you suspected Hermit and he had no votes, it would make sense to vote him so that at least some pressure was there such that he wasn't getting away.

Um, here you contradict yourself. You said just a while ago there was already suspicion on him, aka pressure. Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

When did I once actually advocate lynching Nelly based on his actions? If you find me one time I posted that, I will be fine being lynched. Otherwise, why are you even suspcious of me?

I included both quotes there for a reason.

I never said YOU wanted a lynch; I did imply that if you were scum, a slow lynch would be as effective. I said that you were drawing a false dichotomy by listing the only possibilities as Pressure Bandwagon or Quicklynch

Thats not what I intended. I was under the impression that my vote was being suspected for being on a bandwagon, and thus I tried to indicate why bandwagons are good and different then quicklynches. That was the intention of my point. So I guess you can throw out the discussion on this point.

Yes, other people were criticizing him. Was anyone else voting him? It would stand out later when people were searching through in the late game.

...going with the majority opinion.....

When I voted most people had already listened to hermits second post in which he claimed pressure purposes. So I wasnt going with the popular opinion. Most people were beginning to turn their eyes towards other areas, and thus my vote would have stood out.[/quote]

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They are all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

I attacked all 3. Each is fundamentally flawed. What you appear to be saying is that they were all interdependent and, hence, that (apparently) we can't refute them all in turn, which is complete garbage.

My point was in response to gork who seemed to have misunderstood that point of mine. What I had said was that people were attacking each one of my points as if they were the only rationale for my vote. Like "You say you did it because of noncontribution. trying to lynch them based on just that is bad" which is very similar to something I heard. its faulted in both the apparent reasoning and my apparent goal.

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

No you didn't!

1) is a massive contradiction.

No it isnt! Hermit voted to kill another player based on lack of contribution, READ HIS FIRST POST. I voted for pressure. READ MY FIRST POST. There is a big difference.

2) is no good reason to vote on a wagon

You mean besides adding to pressure and creating discussion?

3) is just plain scummy.

Explain to me why its scummy of a townie to attempt to appear as protown as oppose to scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well great. Nelly is now voting for me. If you guys do decide to lynch me, tell me before hammering so that I may claim and give my final suspicions, and a final defense.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote count

Elias_the_thief - 2 (Volkan, Nelly632)
Paradoxombie - 2 (Ckd, pulsewidth)
Ckd - 1 (Deepfriedninja)
Oman - 1 (Paradoxombie)

With 11 players, it is 6 to lynch!

Prodding DFN right now. Oh, and its my birthday so I might be away for an undisclosed amount of time

[vollkan]

See the post above.

Um, alright. I dont understand whats going on with this point.

In the post above (the one on oman) I proved Oman's actions only make sense to protect a scum partner.

So this is why there is no contradiction. While I have always stood by my vote was for pressure, and NEVER said it was for advocating a lynch, hermit only said that after his first post, which advocated him being lynched pretty strongly. It's wierd you try to pass off this off as his original stance, seeing as you've quoted his original post before.

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo. At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

Yes. Hermit was someone blunter than you. But read what he said more closely, he want OJ's "lurking, random-voting self" killed. This pretty much implies very strongly that Hermit only wanted OJ lynched if he continued to act like he had. ie. Pressure. You seem to be suggesting that Hermit should have said: "Voting Oj to pressure"; that would be completely ineffective.

For the second time, the contradiction is there and it is solid. You can keep digging for evasive little responses if you want, and I will just keep rebutting them.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

One vote is still pressuring. If you suspected Hermit and he had no votes, it would make sense to vote him so that at least some pressure was there such that he wasn't getting away.

Um, here you contradict yourself. You said just a while ago there was already suspicion on him, aka pressure. Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

I love this. You say "suspicion aka pressure". I did say there was suspicion, I never said there was pressure. My exact words were:

But this also fails because other people had criticised Hermit's action. It would have been perfectly reasonable for you to vote Hermit and, if Nelly came up scum, I really can't see you being lynched for not voting Nelly because there was a sense of suspicion against Hermit.

In other words, it is YOU who is now equating suspicion with pressure; if not, then you are misrepresenting me.

Now, this little equation is coming from the guy who just said: (quoted in the dialogue above but I will put it here)

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me.

So, first one vote is not pressure, but then suddenly suspicion from a few people is?

But it gets better because you then ask me (again, quoted above):

Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

I have already addressed this; you are pulling us round in circles.

If you genuinely suspected Hermit, you should have voted to apply some pressure on him.

Thats not what I intended. I was under the impression that my vote was being suspected for being on a bandwagon, and thus I tried to indicate why bandwagons are good and different then quicklynches. That was the intention of my point. So I guess you can throw out the discussion on this point.

....your vote is being suspected for being on a bandwagon against Nelly because your justification (as I have now exhaustively demonstrated) was fundamentally poor.

Also, this doesn't affect, in any way, the dichtomoy you drew. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you are avoiding the issue.

When I voted most people had already listened to hermits second post in which he claimed pressure purposes. So I wasnt going with the popular opinion. Most people were beginning to turn their eyes towards other areas, and thus my vote would have stood out.

Yes; your vote would have stood out...that's precisely why I accused you of going with the majority by not voting hermit. Thankyou for reiterating what I said.

No it isnt! Hermit voted to kill another player based on lack of contribution, READ HIS FIRST POST. I voted for pressure. READ MY FIRST POST. There is a big difference.

Already addressed. If you are actually suggesting that Hermit wanted OJ dead , irrespective of whether OJ started playing well, you are being very silly indeed.

You mean besides adding to pressure and creating discussion?

You went with the majority and have now justified it on the basis that:
Pressure = Good
Bigger wagon = More Pressure
Therefore, Bigger Wagon = Good.

Firstly, a vote on Hermit would be just as effective in generating pressure and discussion. Secondly, your logic is poor because a wagon can lead to a lynch. A justification of "pressure" is a very easy excuse and one which, when we consider your other motivations and Oman's slip-ups, looks very interesting.

Explain to me why its scummy of a townie to attempt to appear as protown as oppose to scummy.

You are openly professing that you voted Nelly partly on the basis that other people were voting Nelly. Your other reasons are complete garbage, so this boils down to you saying that you voted Nelly because everyone else was and you didn't want to stand out.

[Sir Tornado]

Volkans last two post really swayed me on this one, I think you layed out a beautiful trap that Oman fell right into and gave us his scum buddy...

Unvote: Paradoxombie

Vote: Elia_The_Thief

Sir Tornado, in my long post I pretty much gave really good reasons as to why I believe CKD to be town. I was wondering if you have actually read them & if so what are your thoughts because right now you are really placing alot of pressure on CKD...

I am not actually putting "a lot of pressure" on CKD. I am not even voting him.

My comment in my previous post about CKD's post was because I thought no one noticed that scummy statement from CKD. Had anyone else mentioned it, I would not have bothered to post that.

And, the post before that, I used the opportunity to dissuade anyone and everyone from commenting on using NK argument as methods of finding scum -- it is unreliable.

[curiouskarmadog]

ok, well seems to me that vollkan is a town aligned vig, thus the public demostration of his kill. It is in the mafia best interest to keep confirmed townies at a mininum...there is no point for the mafia to take one of us out, when there is a confirmed townie. the mafia wants to have the most unconfirmed townies voting as possible.

Why do you think he's town aligned? One mafioso dead in return for having one be confirmed in the eyes of the town? Seems like a sacrifice any mafia group would be willing to make.

what are you suggesting? We lynch him day 1 and find out?

I do not like this post at all CKD. Elias suggested nothing of that sort. This is, actually a suggestion you just made in that post and tried to shove it on Elias. I find this really scummy.

FOS: Curiouskarmadog

I have stated numerous times that I feel vollkan is town...ELias keeps arguing with me on this point. I stated I feel Vollkan is at least cleared Day 1 in my book, he argued again…why do you think he is arguing with me on this point?

[gorckat]

And, the post before that, I used the opportunity to dissuade anyone and everyone from commenting on using NK argument as methods of finding scum -- it is unreliable.

Unless dealing with a claimed scum/jester

@Nelly: I questioned your statement about ckd's reaction (my 11th post). Can you clarify that please?

@elias: I thought you were saying, to paraphrase, 'people are attacking me for 3 reasons as if their reason was the only one' and meant the Nelly vote, Oman's behavior regarding a vig/lynch of you and distancing from xombie.

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

volkan has really covered you very well, imo. When I see something, I question it. You've responded to two such instances, iirc:

Why are you playing to help the town by being afraid of a distancing accusation?

and

This is no defense unless you show how all 3 things cannot be true at the same time. Then its up to us to decide which exclusive option is most likely.

(The second being a misread/understanding on my part.)

I have read your defenses. I think they are outweighed by the attack (except for my misread, of course).

On a meta level, is it advisable for a townie lynchee to give "final suspicions"? If they're wrong, the scum can try to support them via NK. If they're right, they can try to debunk them via NK.

[TheHermit]

I don't like the way Elias is trying to misrepresent me. It's good that the town's not buying it (as I clarified my position seconds after voting oj), but I get the feeling he thinks if he repeats an argument often enough people will believe it. I find the points against him logically sound given the information we have.

Vote: Elias_the_thief

[Nelly632]

@Nelly: I questioned your statement about ckd's reaction (my 11th post). Can you clarify that please?

In my opinion I had already cleared CKD in my mind as being scum so I was not looking for a reaction from him... Being a jerk was a attempt to get a read from people not CKD because I once again felt I had a good enough read on him... I will give you a example of what I was loking for...

A calm person:
"It looks like someone is taking this game a little bit to serious, tossing insults is not going to take the heat off of you"

A not calm person:
"It is funny how someone can contribute nothing to this game, come out here vote for themselves and then call the rest of us foolish. You need to stop being a noob and get replaced instead of being a jerk."

[Elias_the_thief]

See the post above.

Um, alright. I dont understand whats going on with this point.

In the post above (the one on oman) I proved Oman's actions only make sense to protect a scum partner.

Unless of course my suspicion from a long time ago was true, and that this was in fact an elaborate scum gambit. Not only would your dayvigging of scum make you appear confirmed town, but if you arranged with him this way, it makes a townie appear confirmed scum. Farfetched, but it's the only explanaiton I can come up with, because I am town.

Yes. Hermit was someone blunter than you. But read what he said more closely, he want OJ's "lurking, random-voting self" killed. This pretty much implies very strongly that Hermit only wanted OJ lynched if he continued to act like he had. ie. Pressure. You seem to be suggesting that Hermit should have said: "Voting Oj to pressure"; that would be completely ineffective.

For the second time, the contradiction is there and it is solid. You can keep digging for evasive little responses if you want, and I will just keep rebutting them.

Um, no, stfu. I dont care what you seem to think it implied, he wanted nelly gone regardless of alignment.

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo.

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

In case you didnt get that,

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not,

I want him gone

.

Vote: ojpower

Did you get it that time? HE WANTED HIM GONE, LOLZ. I really dont give a shit what he said in his next post. Of course he tried to take it back, ITS CALLED BACKTRACKING, and its considered a well known scum move when caught in a mistake. I'm not saying that he should have said he was voting for pressure, but he shouldn't have come out and said "LOLZ I WANT NELLY DEAD". Look at my vote. I did it for pressure, I didnt go to either extreme, I just voted. I dont know how you can say I'm making evasive responses, its right there in the bold text. So, you can clearly see that I was suspcious of Hermit for wanting a player dead for noncontribution (regardless of alignment), not just wanting to pressure them. But wait, there's more! It's not as if you can even compare Hermits vote to mine, because Hermit's vote was based PURELY ON THIS.

It was Hermits primary reason to vote Nelly

. My use of contribution was my secondary reason to vote Nelly, and I was still not using it to lynch! My actions and the actions of Hermit are different. Accept it, and stop giving Hermit excuses like, "oh he implied this" how the hell would you know what HE was trying to imply? I don't care if can't see through his backtracks, I can, and that's why I'm suspicious of him. Unless you can get in his head and find out his original motives, then I dont think you can argue with me fairly on this point.

Now, I'm not trying to misrepresent you on the pressure point, however, when there are several people putting fosses on you and questioning you, its pressure of some sort, whether you like it or not. Pressure in my opinion is just as its defined in the dictionary, not some special mafia term that has to have a vote or fos to count. It's still barely any, and my vote would still have not accomplished much, seeing as Hermit had already backtracked his way out of it and people were turning in other directions, but he had already recieved some pressure (bringing about the famous backtrack). That's also why my vote would still stand out, people were beginning to turn in other directions, and I wouldve been the only person to vote for him.

So, first one vote is not pressure, but then suddenly suspicion from a few people is?

Um, no? I said that a single vote is barely any pressure. I agree that an fos and a couple of questions from others is barely anything substantial, but it's still pressure.

Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

I have already addressed this; you are pulling us round in circles.

No I'm not. By voting for Nelly I added pressure that led to Nelly eventually complying and adding information. Who knows whether the wagon wouldve been effective if I hadn't jumped on. If I vote for Hermit, it pressure him into backtracking, which he'd already done. If I pressure Nelly, it forces him to contribute. See why getting a player to contribute is accomplishing more than forcing a player to repeat their backtrack? ya see that?

That's why my vote for hermit would accomplish less pressure and accomplish less as a whole.

If you genuinely suspected Hermit, you should have voted to apply some pressure on him.

I thought I had made it clear through this entire debate that noncontribution was the secondary issue which made the most difference in my choice. I probably would've written a case and voted hermit now but I keep being pestered by you and your idiotic accusations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to quote you on the next point. My foundation was not fundamentally poor. I saw a player voting themselves, (something that is decidedly scummy in my book), and I saw another player who claimed to want a player gone without regard to alignment. However, one was at least posting and contributing, one was not. Plus hermit had already backtracked, what more did I expect my vote to do on him, pressure wise? In addition, it would look bad to vote for him with the mounting Nelly wagon anyhow, so I voted Nelly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the dichtomoy I drew, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was trying to explain how bandwagons and not quicklynches, and how bandwagons are actually good for the town. What issue am I supposedly ignoring? Why bandwagons are good for town? Of course you can say I'm avoiding the issue if you never tell me what the issue is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes; your vote would have stood out...that's precisely why I accused you of going with the majority by not voting hermit. Thankyou for reiterating what I said.

This point is pure BS. How can you accuse someone of not going with the majority while not voting someone? Unless the person is about to lynched, the majority of people are always not voting for someone. I never said most people were beginning to vote Nelly, I said most were turning away from Hermit. I was only the third person on the Nelly wagon. For my vote on Nelly to be joining the majority, you'd have to call 2 of 12 a majority.

Already addressed. If you are actually suggesting that Hermit wanted OJ dead , irrespective of whether OJ started playing well, you are being very silly indeed.

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

You call me the silly one?

Firstly, a vote on Hermit would be just as effective in generating pressure and discussion. Secondly, your logic is poor because a wagon can lead to a lynch.

Firstly, no it wouldnt. Hermit would repeat his backtrack, no pressure would really be on him. The discussion surrounding Hermits vote had already been covered. And, um, dumbass, anything can lead to a lynch, a single vote, an fos, anything. As long as you keep wagons in check, a mislynch never occurs. Never, in my experience as town, has a wagon gone awry and lead to an unwanted lynch. Never. It really rarely happens at all. Before you say things, get experience to back it up. Look at some games, you'll see it's true.

A justification of "pressure" is a very easy excuse and one which, when we consider your other motivations and Oman's slip-ups, looks very interesting.

I dont care how easy of an excuse it is. Jumping on the Nelly wagon to add pressure to it is the proper protown play in my situation.

Pressure = Good
Bigger wagon = More Pressure
Therefore, Bigger Wagon = Good

This is true, except you leave out the final point, Mislynch = Bad. That's why I always keep wagons in check. If I feel a mislynch could occur, I unvote. And look, the wagon got to -1, Nelly is now contributing, and no mislynch. Would you look at that? It's almost as if my 12 games of experience were right.

You are openly professing that you voted Nelly

partly

on the basis that other people were voting Nelly.

Yup.

Your other reasons are complete garbage,

I covered this. Theyre not.

so this boils down to you saying that you voted Nelly because everyone else was and you didn't want to stand out.

No dumbass. You're drawing false connections. Wagons are good for town. They create more pressure then a single vote, especially since Hermit had already done his backtracking. The fact that it would stand out, as I've already said, was the least important reason for my vote. The fact that other people were voting Nelly is not only connected the the "standing out" point, but also to the pressure point. If you're accepting that more votes is more pressure, and you're accepting that there were more votes on Nelly, then guess what? You just accepted one of my points, not just the one about standing out.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Please discontinue the use of abusive language when referring to other players. I do not punish foul language as a rule, but I think some of you should lighten up and remember this is just a game. Think twice before you post something. Thank you for your time.

[Elias_the_thief]

I thought several times before this post, but you know what? I'm pissed off. I'm a vanilla townie, and if anyone here had more than about 3 months of experience they would realize my play and reasoning was not suspicious in the least. I'll use any type of language I choose to, since at this point my words are falling on deaf ears. Maybe a little extra enthusiasm will get it through their thick skulls. Thanks for your time, mister mod. And have a happy birthday.

-Edited by the moderator

[curiouskarmadog]

For what it is worth here, I think Elias and Hermit (will provide a PBP if needed) has had some very scummy play here, Day 1. However, I do not think either should be the lynch today. I think Para would be the play for today. He put Nelly at –1 and gave us a bunch of crap to explain why…

Now that Vollkan and Elias has been going round and round he has disappeared and has not provided feedback either way.

I think some pressure needs to be applied on Para.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm sorry Albert, I didnt want to yell at you on your birthday. But I am really pissed off by other players in this game and whatnot...
Happy Birthday (didnt need to editted).

[curiouskarmadog]

Elias...where is your vote right now?

You have spent a lot of time defending yourself, but little time actually looking for scum...why is that?

who do you think is scum, right now?

[Elias_the_thief]

You have spent a lot of time defending yourself, but little time actually looking for scum...why is that?

Are you kidding me? Each one of those massive posts takes about 15-30 minutes to write. I've barely had any time to look for scum. I need to reread before I say anything, but I'm suspicious of Hermit, because I dont believe his backtrack for one second, and Vollkan, since I'm town, the fact that Oman indicated me last on his list seems to be too convenient to be a coincidence. I seriously think that Oman and Vollkan (mafia aligned dayvig) had this worked out as a planned gambit. But I need to reread some to get my ideas cemented.

As to where my vote is...I'm pretty sure I'm not voting anyone. I unvoted Nelly when I responded to his attacks, and I've been defending myself from various players since.

[curiouskarmadog]

MOD

I have noticed that there have been time increments added to our title. For example, “afternoon”, “late afternoon”, and now “evening”..does that mean there is a deadline coming?

[curiouskarmadog]

Pulsewidth, spag, thehermit, and sir tornado have not really posted enough to warrant a judgement right now either way.

gorckat has not posted the whole game (i think) and as i thought dfn has disappeared

so..

Requesting a prod for gorckat and dfn, please.

Gorckat posted today. DFN will be prodded tomorrow. Don't bother asking me to prod someone if it hasn't been 72 hours without a post yet. -Mod

I think I reversed gorckat and SPAG on this post

Mod

can you prod SPAG too?..oh yeah, happy birthday

[gorckat]

In addition, it would look bad to vote for him with the mounting Nelly wagon anyhow, so I voted Nelly.

You continue to say not looking bad is a reason not to vote someone you are suspicious of.

After voting Nelly, you go round a little with xombie, then address Nelly's suspicions where you first said (as I've quoted before):

and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

I just don't like the whole 'avoiding scum tells despite suspicions is a good thing'. Townies should play fearlessly.

The extreme loss of temper also doesn't ingratiate me. What you basically said is, 'Reason doesn't work, so let me name call.'

(Very minor sidenote- sorry I haven't been capitalizing the 'E' in Elias. I know it annoys me mildly when I see Gorckat )

vote: Elias_the_thief

@Nelly: I questioned your statement about ckd's reaction (my 11th post). Can you clarify that please?

In my opinion I had already cleared CKD in my mind as being scum so I was not looking for a reaction from him... Being a jerk was a attempt to get a read from people not CKD because I once again felt I had a good enough read on him... I will give you a example of what I was loking for...

A calm person:
"It looks like someone is taking this game a little bit to serious, tossing insults is not going to take the heat off of you"

A not calm person:
"It is funny how someone can contribute nothing to this game, come out here vote for themselves and then call the rest of us foolish. You need to stop being a noob and get replaced instead of being a jerk."

The only distinction between your two examples is one called the other person a jerk.

But what I was questioning is:

in my mind the people who get really upset are less scummy then the people who take it in stride… Karma Dog once again questions me instead of voting for me, this is a great sign in my eyes…

You say calm is good now, but not in your post. You contradicted what you were saying at that time.

[Paradoxombie]

He put Nelly at –1 and gave us a bunch of crap to explain why…

You say my case was crap, well at least I backed it up. You haven't shown how any of my logic was wrong, so I guess this statement is super crap.

[curiouskarmadog]

just so that everyone is straight (I know some people have counting problems)..that puts him at -2

[curiouskarmadog]

I guess when you say your “logic” you mean this post.

did you miscount?

Yes. I didn't realize he was near a lynch so I made casual and incomplete count. My fault entirely. But take notice that I said, "I believe." It's important to account for human error.

I find it a little pointless to bother asking players if they're doing things for antitown purposes; the answer is always "no"

As a note, I obviously didn't realize I was putting him at -1, but like I said, unless he starts actually playing, we're gonna lynch him anyway.

Unfortunately(unless he's mafia), he's forced our hand. It's 100% necessary to lynch someone who doesn't play.

that puts him at -3 I believe

this is by far the scummiest sentences thus far in this game...

100% necessary? Forced our hand? -3?

If he doesnt want to post then he is replaced...someone is hungry for a lynch..why is that?...

If anyone here is hungry for a lynch, it's you, for me, because you seem pretty damn worried about your little friend Nelly and quick to deflect suspicion to me.

Anyway if ABR is willing to replace Nelly, then that's that, but I am against it for ethical reasons. I don't believe in replacing except for disapearing and direct gamebreaking.

If we let someone live who isn't gonna post any content then we have no way of knowing if they're mafia. Therefore we will never lynch them, and are possibly letting mafia have a vote all game along with their free pass. Therefore the only logical choice is to lynch him now. I'd say there's a slightly higher chance that he's a townie since mafia seem less likely to end up bored and expirimenting in games. But hey, it's not that much worse odds than the average day 1 lynch.

I say you look lynch hungry, then your point your finger at me. Which is crap. Please quote me and offer some sort of case where I have been lynch crazy. Not for replacing people, is also crap. Seems to me that lurkers are easy targets for mafia…

The whole last paragraph is completely out there. Basically you say lynching lurkers is a good idea day 1. no…it isn’t. this to me indicates that you want to get the Night 1 as soon as possible. If you lynch a lurker it gives you exactly ZERO information Day 2 to work off of…replace the lurker is always the way to go.

Yeah, your statements are really based firmly on logic.

Basically your whole contribution to this game was putting someone at –1 following a dead scum. What scum are you currently rooting out? Currently your vote is on a dead guy.

[Elias_the_thief]

In addition, it would look bad to vote for him with the mounting Nelly wagon anyhow, so I voted Nelly.

You continue to say not looking bad is a reason not to vote someone you are suspicious of.

What part of my previous statements "In addition" and "This was my weakest reason" do you not understand? Despite all my posts on the subject, you still attack this reasoning as if it were the only rationale I used when determining my vote.

After voting Nelly, you go round a little with xombie, then address Nelly's suspicions where you first said (as I've quoted before):

and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

I just don't like the whole 'avoiding scum tells despite suspicions is a good thing'. Townies should play fearlessly.

Why is that? No one has once explained to me why it is bad for a townie to be consious of appearing protown. My record as town is 1-4, I'm always very concious of appearing town, since I do say badly at it usually. If this is your rationale for lynching me, you had better come up with some reason as to why trying to appear protown is a scummy play.

The extreme loss of temper also doesn't ingratiate me. What you basically said is, 'Reason doesn't work, so let me name call.'

Extreme loss of temper? Reason doesnt work? I hardly call my anger extreme, and I consider it to be well warranted. I only namecalled once, and that was to call vollkan a dumbass over one point. Please do not go over my latest arguments and say "ZOMG! he name called, now i can disregard everything he says. Not once in that post did I abandon reason. How bout actually reading about how it wasnt a contradiction on my part? How bout addressing my arguments?

vote: Elias_the_thief

And now you vote for me. What are your reasons? You are simply jumping on because you can. First, you have not responded to any of my arguments, and let Vollkan do that work for you. Second, Vollkan hasnt even responded to my most recent proof that I didnt make a contradiction. Thus my first and most prominent reason for making my vote stands. I have no idea why I'm being voted by practically everyone. I want an explanation from Gorkcat and the hermit as to why theyre voting me.

[curiouskarmadog]

and I would like you to comment on who you feel is scum at this point in the game.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright. Im rereading right now, assuming no one else votes me without actually reading the arguments ive made.