Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[Albert B. Rampage]

Official Mod Announcement

Deadline hits September the 2nd at 19:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST).

[TheHermit]

1) No matter how much content I post, it shouldn't form the basis for your own suspicion.
2) I'm either skilled or a propagandist (I assume you mean a scum making a crappy case)? This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either I am scum or Elias is scum. The problem with this is obvious.
3) The only example of a relevant point you give is the "shifty and suspicious as heck" thing. I never said that or ANYTHING to that effect. This looks to me like you simply gleaned the perception that I found Elias guilty and voted on that basis, possibly taking advantage of the fact that I am appearing protown in light of Oman's vigging.

1) I've no defense prepared for this. You are right, of course. I'm a bit ashamed of myself for forgetting that.
2) People seem to love putting words in my mouth. Perhaps some of this is my fault, as I realize I've been somewhat more brusque than usual in this game. I said I thought you had good points. Besides, there's no dichotomy here. It's perfectly reasonable to suspect that you're both scum.
3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious. That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

Plus, you are just admitting that OJ was a sitting duck for scum.

When did I say this? If anything, the scum would keep such players around to stymie town efforts in the mid-late game. It's one thing to glean hidden meanings in my words where none exist, and another entirely to attribute the exact opposite of what I said.

Well done on ignoring what is obviously the most important thing. I wasn't being a pedant about the timing; one hour is not too much. What is important is Tornado's post. You backtracked when you realised your actions had been perceived as scummy.

I suppose, then, that the right thing to do would be to just let you make whatever assumptions you want about my motives rather than clear things up when I saw myself being misunderstood. Obviously the smartest thing to do would have been to make myself perfectly clear in the first place, but that ship had sailed.

[Elias_the_thief]

1) It's even worse than basing your suspicions. You said you didnt care about alignment. So you werent even suspicious.
2) No argument here.
3) Excuse me? I responded to every fricking point that was brought against me, and never evaded a question once. How exactly am I "dodgy" or "shifty"?

[vollkan]

1) I've no defense prepared for this. You are right, of course. I'm a bit ashamed of myself for forgetting that.

So, you voted purely because I had said so much on Elias?

2) People seem to love putting words in my mouth. Perhaps some of this is my fault, as I realize I've been somewhat more brusque than usual in this game. I said I thought you had good points. Besides, there's no dichotomy here. It's perfectly reasonable to suspect that you're both scum.

But my points were not "good" in the sense that you should have voted on them. You now saying "I thought you had good points" is just a very weak way of trying to justify your baseless vote.

And you just extended it to a trichotomy. Why is it that you don't concede the possibility that both Elias and myself are town?

You spend three pages making someone look bad, and then wonder why people people vote for the guy you're yelling at? Most people would take that as a sign that you're doing your job well. Either that or you're very skilled at propaganda. Point is,

I

briefly

skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points (those being, "Elias is being shifty and suspicious as heck"

), and acted on them only to find you biting and snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and

I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious.

That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

Direct contradiction between the bolded parts.

In the earlier quote you say that the "shifty and suspicious" was the "relevant point". That is not even a point of argument, yet alone something you should vote on. Additionally, you say you read it briefly. Again, that gets me wondering if you just latched on to what was evidently suspicion of Elias coming from me.

But, moving back to the contradiction, in the earlier one it is one of MY points whilst in the later one it is YOUR impression.

Even though this is a contradiction to defend yourself, it isn't a very good choice anyway because you would still be admitting that you voted on a generalised impression.

[quote="Hermit"

Plus, you are just admitting that OJ was a sitting duck for scum.

When did I say this? If anything, the scum would keep such players around to stymie town efforts in the mid-late game. It's one thing to glean hidden meanings in my words where none exist, and another entirely to attribute the exact opposite of what I said.
[/quote]

WIFOM ahoy.

I suppose, then, that the right thing to do would be to just let you make whatever assumptions you want about my motives rather than

clear things up when I saw myself being misunderstood.

Obviously the smartest thing to do would have been to make myself perfectly clear in the first place, but that ship had sailed.

You made yourself perfectly clear in the first place; you said you wanted a lynch. In the bolded bit, you admit that the reason you posted was to clear yourself up in light of Tornado's comments.

Again, this is inconsistent with earlier on when you said you clarified "seconds later". I don't mean seconds literally, but when you first raised this you made it sound like it was an immediate clarification due to a fairly large error, whereas now you are saying it was in response to Tornado.

In brief, to save massive quoting,address these:
1) So you admit you voted based on how much I had said?
2) Saying I had "good points" is just a weak way to justify voting on the basis of them.
3) You just made a trichotomy. You are ignoring the possibility that both Elias and myself are town.
4) Earlier, you said "shifty and suspicious" was one of my points, now it is your general impression.
a) This is a contradiction
b) So you voted on a general impression?
5) Your OJ argument is a WIFOM
6) Earlier, your clarification was "seconds later" as though it were a response to you realising of your own accord that you had made an error (I am not taking "seconds" literally) but now it is in response to Tornado.

[TheHermit]

And you just extended it to a trichotomy. Why is it that you don't concede the possibility that both Elias and myself are town?

What, you don't understand what a smiley face means? Geez, remind me never to crack a joke around you. Chill out for a second. It seems like you're just throwing anything you can find at me, regardless of whether it means anything or now, in the hopes it'll stick and get people voting for me.

But, moving back to the contradiction, in the earlier one it is one of MY points whilst in the later one it is YOUR impression.

I thought that's what you said. When you claim it wasn't I can't very well continue saying it was, now can I? Again, you're grasping at straws.

WIFOM ahoy.

And now you're not only intentionally missing the point, but you're misusing the word. I was explaining why I considered leaving oj alive dangerous in that specific situation, not saying, "If I were scum I wouldn't vote for oj". This was, if you recall, your response to why you made up a claim and attributed it to me, a clear case of dodging the question.

Now, if you were actually arguing with decent logic, you might have said that I did make that claim off-hand in one of my first posts, though it has been far from my primary concern. Instead you use "WIFOM" like a magic spell that can dispel any suspicion as soon as it's uttered. I'm not impressed.

In brief, to save massive quoting

Way, way too late for that.

1) So you admit you voted based on how much I had said?

Quality, not quantity. I thought your points were reasonable, but apparently your entire strategy revolves around throwing ancillary points around in the hopes of... what? That they'll crack under the pressure? That someone else will do something stupid so you can go throw everything including the kitchen sink at THEM? Had I noticed earlier that this is what you were doing, I wouldn't have voted for him. Is that what you wanted to hear? That your style of investigation is counter-productive?

Suspicions, Mr Volkran. In all your attacks, you have yet to make a clear case for why I'm scum. If your entire reason for attacking me is, "he hasn't had the time to read every mammoth post in the whole thread in excruciating detail every day", I think you need to get some new logic. Yours is broken.

2) Saying I had "good points" is just a weak way to justify voting on the basis of them.

As weak as attacking me on the basis of "how DARE you make a joke in this soopa-sirios game of mafia!"?

3) You just made a trichotomy. You are ignoring the possibility that both Elias and myself are town.

I thought it was perfectly clear that I was semi-joking; you're just humorless. And now if I say, "Of course it's possible you're both town", you'll accuse me of backtracking. Like I said earlier, broken logic. This time your entire attack revolves around you not knowing what a smiley means.

4) Earlier, you said "shifty and suspicious" was one of my points, now it is your general impression.
a) This is a contradiction
b) So you voted on a general impression?

It is not a contradiction, it was a refinement of my view in light of new knowledge. People who use sound logic change their viewpoint when new information becomes available; it's called "deductive reasoning", you should try it sometime. And aren't you always voting on an "impression" unless you know for certain what someone's alignment is? Again, there is no merit in this line of questioning.

5) Your OJ argument is a WIFOM

I don't think that means what you think it means. Look it up. I don't want to hear you say it again until you can use it in a sentence.

6) Earlier, your clarification was "seconds later" as though it were a response to you realising of your own accord that you had made an error (I am not taking "seconds" literally) but now it is in response to Tornado.

What kind of point are you trying to make here? Whether I realized the error myself or whether I only noticed it when it was pointed out to me, is there a difference? Are you seriously attacking me on the basis of "if you were town you'd be perfectly clear and not ever make mistakes, ever"? I don't think I need to tell you all the holes in that.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Mod announcement:

JordanA24 replaces DFN

as of now. Give Jordan a big thank you for replacing so close to deadline, and a warm welcome because Mod said so.

Jordan says:

Hi guys, I'm replacing Deepfried Ninja, it's midnight here atm, so, I'll post my thoughts when I get up.

Gorckat has also been prodded.

[vollkan]

I thought that's what you said.

When you claim it wasn't I can't very well continue saying it was, now can I? Again, you're grasping at straws.

I refer back to your original comment where it was my point:

Point is,

I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points (those being, "Elias is being shifty and suspicious as heck"), and acted on them

only to find you biting and snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

Now when it is your impression:

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and

I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious.

That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

You have now given us 3 different accounts of your basis for voting:
First up, "shifty and suspicious" was MY point (according to you).
Then, it becomes YOUR "impression"
And, now, it is what you "thought I said"

None of these are consistent with each other.

Quality, not quantity. I thought your points were reasonable, but apparently your entire strategy revolves around throwing ancillary points around in the hopes of... what? That they'll crack under the pressure? That someone else will do something stupid so you can go throw everything including the kitchen sink at THEM?

Criticise me for your perception of my approach if you want; but I do notice that I have exposed contradictions behind your vote

Had I noticed earlier that this is what you were doing, I wouldn't have voted for him.

Woah; hold on. First my points were "logically sound" but now you think they are garbage!? What has changed? Oh, of course, I directed my questioning to you.

Is that what you wanted to hear? That your style of investigation is counter-productive?

Yup. Your criticism of me now that I put you under questioning is utterly inconsistent with your previous lauding of my points.

Suspicions, Mr Volkran. In all your attacks, you have yet to make a clear case for why I'm scum. If your entire reason for attacking me is, "he hasn't had the time to read every mammoth post in the whole thread in excruciating detail every day", I think you need to get some new logic. Yours is broken.

Clear case, fine:
1) You vote OJ seeking a "lynch" (you explicitly used the word "lynch") and then backtracked to justify it. Note also, how many of your earlier posts were about how nothing about OJ/DFN seemed scummy. Then you changed your tune completely
2) You joining a wagon on Elias for as yet undetermined reasons
3) Ongoing

2) Saying I had "good points" is just a weak way to justify voting on the basis of them.

As weak as attacking me on the basis of "how DARE you make a joke in this soopa-sirios game of mafia!"?

What a spectacular way of dodging a question.

4) Earlier, you said "shifty and suspicious" was one of my points, now it is your general impression.
a) This is a contradiction
b) So you voted on a general impression?

It is not a contradiction, it was a refinement of my view in light of new knowledge. People who use sound logic change their viewpoint when new information becomes available; it's called "deductive reasoning", you should try it sometime. And aren't you always voting on an "impression" unless you know for certain what someone's alignment is? Again, there is no merit in this line of questioning.

First it was something I said, then it was your impression. The fact that I DIDN'T say something is not new knowledge; it is something you apparently knew as the basis for your vote. Changing what you said because I point out it is BS is not "sound logic", it's contradictory.

Also, "deductive reasoning" is where one reaches conclusions using previously known premises.

No. You vote on evidence which gives you an impression, not on the impression itself. In your case, you are saying that the impression you derived from my now-declared poor arguments alone was sufficient for you to vote.

6) Earlier, your clarification was "seconds later" as though it were a response to you realising of your own accord that you had made an error (I am not taking "seconds" literally) but now it is in response to Tornado.

What kind of point are you trying to make here? Whether I realized the error myself or whether

I only noticed it when it was pointed out to me

, is there a difference? Are you seriously attacking me on the basis of "if you were town you'd be perfectly clear and not ever make mistakes, ever"? I don't think I need to tell you all the holes in that.

So I suppose that

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.

was all one massive typo?

Only noticed it when it was pointed out to you? Earlier on it was just a lapse of time, then it was you needing to make a correction because people had pointed it out and now you didn't realise your "error" until it was pointed out.

Your responses have been contradictory, evasive and ad hominem. That's enough for me to

Vote: TheHermit

[vollkan]

Messed up the syntax in the middle there. It should read:

1) So you admit you voted based on how much I had said?

Quality, not quantity. I thought your points were reasonable, but apparently your entire strategy revolves around throwing ancillary points around in the hopes of... what? That they'll crack under the pressure? That someone else will do something stupid so you can go throw everything including the kitchen sink at THEM? Had I noticed earlier that this is what you were doing, I wouldn't have voted for him. Is that what you wanted to hear? That your style of investigation is counter-productive?

Suspicions, Mr Volkran. In all your attacks, you have yet to make a clear case for why I'm scum. If your entire reason for attacking me is, "he hasn't had the time to read every mammoth post in the whole thread in excruciating detail every day", I think you need to get some new logic. Yours is broken.

[Sir Tornado]

Oh, god! Sorry for the lurking guys... I'll post as soon as possible... (I realize that it's been days and pages since I posted)

[vollkan]

Oh, god! Sorry for the lurking guys... I'll post as soon as possible... (I realize that it's been days and pages since I posted)

That's fine.

Also, let me just say that in my second post correcting the first one's syntax problem I made an error by omitting comments I made within Hermit's post in bold. They are in the poorly-syntaxed original but not in the properly-syntaxed attempt at correction.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote count

TheHermit - 2 (Elias_the_thief, volkan)

Elias_the_thief - 1 (Nelly632)
Paradoxombie - 1 (Ckd)
Ckd - 1 (JordanA24)

With 11 players, it is 6 to lynch!

[TheHermit]

When you yourself admit that your points are garbage, what else am I supposed to say? I thought they were compelling at the time, but they lose a lot of weight when you yourself say, "By the way, I don't believe in that".

You have yet to point out a single "contradiction" in my oj vote. All you are doing is twisting my words, inventing scenarios, and then calling your resulting mess a "contradiction". I think this is another term you should look up in the dictionary. As I've explained to you many times and I am getting tired of repeating myself, I wanted him gone as long as he maintained his present playstyle. If you're going to continue twisting my words into saying I'm "contradicting" myself be my guest. Just be aware that what you're doing has no basis in reality, and that voting me because of that is poor logic.

My explanation for the Elias thing remains as such: I did not have the time to fully read the interrogation bit by bit, and I didn't like how he was constantly misrepresenting my oj vote (you understood my reasoning at the time; what changed there?). Your entire argument with your vote is, "If you were town you'd play perfectly and you would automatically notice everything and it's not my fault if you've been looking for a job and had dentist appointments and a death in the family, you should read four pages of posts that appeared overnight without getting bleary-eyed and resorting to skimming because only scum would do that". If I come up town no crying to me later. I've done nothing but give my honest explanation and my honest opinions even if it makes me look bad. I wash my hands of this if the town ends up losing.

For that matter, being on the receiving end of your witch hunt has given me a new perspective on your investigation style. Now that I am forced to read it in detail, I have become disillusioned of it and find it lacking. I suppose next you'll say, "Changing your mind when you receive new information is scummy"? And if I'm noticing it for the first time, YES, it's new to me.

As for the ad hominem thing? 'Ad hominem' means 'against the man', basically heaping insults or attempts to damage character in a way that has no bearing on the case. If I say your logic is bad, it's because it's your LOGIC that's bad. If you're using bad logic, that is immensely relevant. I never said, "You must be wrong because you smell bad," I said, "Your logic makes no sense, and you used 'WIFOM' wrong, which is bad if that's your entire point". How is this ad hominem? Please learn what words mean before you use them. I don't know about you, but I have difficulty believing someone's logic when he doesn't seem to know what half the words he's saying means. Is he intentionally trying to obfuscate? Is the logic I'm hearing actually what he meant? This is not ad hominem, it is a legitimate concern. If you and I don't have the same understanding on what a word means, any communication involving that word has the chance to be misunderstood.

[Elias_the_thief]

When you yourself admit that your points are garbage, what else am I supposed to say? I thought they were compelling at the time, but they lose a lot of weight when you yourself say, "By the way, I don't believe in that".

I dont recall him calling his points bad. I recall that he said the they werent quite strong enought that people should be using them as a basis to advocate a lynch, which is what it looked like when basically the whole game was piling on.

My explanation for the Elias thing remains as such: I did not have the time to fully read the interrogation bit by bit, and I didn't like how he was constantly misrepresenting my oj vote (you understood my reasoning at the time; what changed there?).

How did I misrepresent your vote? Look back at your original post. Then look at you second post and tell me thats not a backtrack. Then tell me that my interpretation of your vote, even if it was wrong, was a bad interpretation

Your entire argument with your vote is, "If you were town you'd play perfectly and you would automatically notice everything and it's not my fault if you've been looking for a job and had dentist appointments and a death in the family, you should read four pages of posts that appeared overnight without getting bleary-eyed and resorting to skimming because only scum would do that".

You know, instead of reading incorrectly and posting poorly, then having to cover with this appeal to emotion, you couldve told us that you were having RL troubles before you posted your thoughts. If you had RL issues, no one would have minded if you sat out and got caught up later.

For that matter, being on the receiving end of your witch hunt has given me a new perspective on your investigation style. Now that I am forced to read it in detail, I have become disillusioned of it and find it lacking. I suppose next you'll say, "Changing your mind when you receive new information is scummy"? And if I'm noticing it for the first time, YES, it's new to me.

I dont care for Vollkans interrogation style either. He seems to force contradictions on you even when you havent made them (through all too literal interpretation). However, I feel you are scum for several reasons, and I think his investigation is correct this time. If you cant handle it, get replaced and dont play with him again.

[Paradoxombie]

I haven't had a chance to reread and post yet guys. Hopefully tommorow.

[vollkan]

contradiction - /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ - noun: a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

For some examples of a contradiction:

I thought that's what you said.

I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points

As for the ad hominem matter. You obviously aren't aware that ad hominem does not necessitate insult. Ad hominem ("against the person") is simply where you assert an argument is wrong by reference to something about the arguer's credibility/authority/....moving down the spectrum of maturity to sexuality/weight/etc.

Your employment of ad hominem is in your attacking of my argument style and my "logic" (a wonderfully ambiguous word). You repeatedly say that it is my twisted logic that is giving me points against you. Hence, you are seeking to discredit me by reference to something other than the substantiative content of my arguments.

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious. That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

I dont care for Vollkans interrogation style either. He seems to force contradictions on you even when you havent made them (through all too literal interpretation). However, I feel you are scum for several reasons, and I think his investigation is correct this time. If you cant handle it, get replaced and dont play with him again.

This seems to be the one thing that you and Hermit have alike, and is a criticism I have gotten in other games.

The "style" as I intend it is to basically raise an analysis of the conduct of somebody who I have reason to suspect. I don't just raise the points of highest suspicion (for Elias: Oman's list and his vote on Nelly; For Hermit: His OJ vote, his Elias vote), but I raise minor points as well. I certainly consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation which interests me. I tend to drag out the arguments to an extent, because the strategy depends on a large amount of questioning.

I then find that people do one of two things:
1) Like Elias, their explanations are consistent. Any grievances minor or major are resolved (This excludes the Oman list, but I think that could become more helpful later on)
2) Like Hermit, they resort to contradictory and ever-changing explanations.

Of course, the immediate problem which people bring up is what Hermit has suggested; the "no townie is perfect" thing. Agreed, but if we follow that line of thought, this game would be constant "No Lynches" (ignoring people who claim scum or make blatant slip-ups). It is more likely that scum will be inconsistent

[vollkan]

Edit:

I certainly consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation which interests me.

is a very bad typo

it should read:

I certainly1

DO NOT

consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation

[curiouskarmadog]

unless I am missing something pulsewidth's last post was 08/19..it is now 08/23...I would like to hear more from him.

Prodding Nelly too..Gorckat as well...sheesh as soon as I find one replacement, I need another...non-stop! -Mod

[Nelly632]

I am still here... I have a theroy whci I will be posting later today...

[TheHermit]

I'm only going to explain this one more time.

Me: "Those are good points."
volkan: "No they're not!"
Me: "Well, I thought they were good."
volken: "AHA! First you say 'they are', now you say you 'thought they were'. A contradiction! You must be scum because scum contradict themselves!"

This is why I attack your logic. You spin a "contradiction" story out of whole cloth and vote me on the basis of that. It's true that scum contradict themselves by necessity, but if I were town wouldn't I be making the exact same statements? You have proven that I don't use the same words every single time, and you have proven that I have the ability to change my mind. You have not proven why either of the above is scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

You did not say they were good points. You said that I was dodgy and shifty. I was openly addressing his points, and you should not have got that impression. I dunno, I just really think youre scum.

I see your point about Vollkans "contradictions", however, he is right in most of his attacks.

"I thought that's what you said."
"I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points "
Is not a contradiction. He skimmed it, but thought you said something you didnt. Its the result of skimming, and still suspicious, but not a contradiction

[vollkan]

I am clearly missing something here.
(for the following let sas = shifty and suspicious
1) Hermit: "You made the point that Elias was sas" -> I said it
2) Hermit: "No. sas was just my general impression" -> Hermit impression
3) Hermit: "No no. I thought you said sas." -> Hermit THINKS I said it.

Can somebody explain how that is NOT a contradiction. First it is me, then it is hermit, then it was hermit thinking it was me.

contradiction - /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ - noun: a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

To put this in the form of the definition:
The statement that I said said something contradicts the statement that it was hermit's impression which in turn contradicts the statement that it was something he thought I said.

We have 3 mutually-incompatible explanations coming from hermit.

Is not a contradiction. He skimmed it, but thought you said something you didnt. Its the result of skimming, and still suspicious, but not a contradiction

Firstly, in hermit's vote he did not mention that he had skimmed. That has been inserted later. Indeed, in hermit's vote he said the points were "logically sound" (...so much for me having faulty logic) which implies he read them in considerable depth.

If he skimmed then I think scenario 2 is most valid, followed by 3. Nonetheless, the 3 of them contradict each other.

Can somebody please explain to me how those 3 explanations are not contradictory? How all 3 of them can logically sit side-by-side simultaneously.

[Elias_the_thief]

he couldve gotten the general impression off of something he thought you said. *shrugs*. I dunno. Even if he didnt contradict himself, its probably because of the way you're pressuring him, and it doesnt seem too major to me. This is why I dont like your form of scumhunting, Vollkan. I think the evidence against is enough for a lynch anyways, butt I really dont like how Nelly has gone back to sitting in the shadows. I sure hope he posts that theory soon.

[curiouskarmadog]

I haven't had a chance to reread and post yet guys. Hopefully tommorow.

speaking of sitting in the shadows..

[vollkan]

"general impression": That was explanation number 2.

Firstly he said it was a point of mine.
Then he said it was his impression.
Then he said it was something he thought I said.

As for my scumhunting, you say yourself that you think the evidence is strong enough. In that case, don't you think my probing tactics work well in drawing out contradictions from the people who have evidence against them.

I mean, the basis of my questioning was the reason behind Hermit's vote for you, which was suspicious in itself purely because he was voting based on my case. Then we find his explanations to be utterly inconsistent. He commits a scummy act and then he can't justify his actions consistently which only adds to my suspicion.

[vollkan]

And karma, do you even have a position on all of this?

You have a vote on para, but in terms of content you are being fairly minimal. I don't expect (or want) novels from you, but you are sitting there prodding other people without contributing yourself.