Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[Idiotking]

Hi, paradoxombie, great to see you've been keeping up with my play lately... /sarcasm

[DeathRowKitty]

Anti-town hurts town, correct? You say your example would have distracted the town from the game. That hurts the town. If something hurts the town, it raises suspicion. You yourself said it makes the troublemaker suspicious. Anything that raises suspicion is scummy. Scum probably wouldn't do that (it'd be suicide) but nevertheless it's a scummy thing to do. Scum don't just do scummy things, and town can do scummy things too.

Anti-town is anything that goes against the town's motives. Discussing Fermat's Last Theorem is against the town's motives and therefore anti-town. Posting the entire proof is even more so against the town's motives and therefore even more anti-town. I wouldn't find either to be scummy. Scummy behavior (to me at least) isn't just anti-town play; it's play that you would expect to see from scum as opposed to town. I agree that town can do scummy things too, but I disagree with your definition of scummy. For example, would you consider me any more likely to be scum if I were to start posting the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?

You're right, it wasn't accompanied by ANY REASON whatsoever. All roads point to it being random, so it's natural to assume that it was a random vote. Just because you say it lacks the usual flavoring of a random vote doesn't mean it wasn't random.

It's true that it doesn't mean it wasn't random, but it makes it considerably less likely. Why even bother to random vote if you don't give a reason? (Arguably, why vote at all if you don't give a reason but RC's already said why)

I've got a question for you. RC says he voted dank for being a grammar nazi, basically, even though more suspicious things had happened by that point. He says the reason he didn't post reasoning in his vote post was so he'd get reactions. Then he responds in the above manner when he gets those reactions. In your opinion, is this normal townie play? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious?

He didn't vote dank for being a grammar nazi. He voted dank for what he perceived as dank intentionally misinterpreting what hiphop said to make it seem scummy. Whether or not anything more suspicious happened is your opinion. I can't really respond to the rest of this because you clearly misrepresented the dialogue by oversimplifying it.

I can see how RC looks a little suspicious because of the situation. I don't see how he looks scummy.

[Idiotking]

Anti-town is anything that goes against the town's motives. Discussing Fermat's Last Theorem is against the town's motives and therefore anti-town. Posting the entire proof is even more so against the town's motives and therefore even more anti-town. I wouldn't find either to be scummy. Scummy behavior (to me at least) isn't just anti-town play; it's play that you would expect to see from scum as opposed to town. I agree that town can do scummy things too, but I disagree with your definition of scummy. For example, would you consider me any more likely to be scum if I were to start posting the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?

Probably. To me being anti-town and being scum mean the same thing. If you hurt the town, you deserve to be suspected. If you hurt the town and then lie about it, you deserve to be lynched.

It's true that it doesn't mean it wasn't random, but it makes it considerably less likely. Why even bother to random vote if you don't give a reason? (Arguably, why vote at all if you don't give a reason but RC's already said why)

...
Random votes are random, they don't need reasons. They're supposed to be reasonless in fact, though I guess most people like to fake a reason jokingly. If you have an actual reason for your vote, it's not random anymore, is it?

I don't believe RC's 'reason'. It was weak and doesn't help justify why he didn't post the reasoning in the first place.

He didn't vote dank for being a grammar nazi. He voted dank for what he perceived as dank intentionally misinterpreting what hiphop said to make it seem scummy.

Ok, ok, maybe it was an oversimplification, but RC isn't even voting for dank anymore. It was a weak reason given the other things that had happened so far in the game.

Whether or not anything more suspicious happened is your opinion.

Like I said, opinions are votes. You have to change opinion to not get voted, and RC has not changed my opinion.

I can see how RC looks a little suspicious because of the situation. I don't see how he looks scummy.

You have to be the first person I've met who thinks suspicious =/= scummy. To me they are the exact same thing. What are your definitions of suspicious and scummy? I'm interested in seeing how you tell the two apart.

[DeathRowKitty]

If I say someone is scummy, it means I think that person is likely to be scum. If I say someone's suspicious, it means I think that person's play has been odd or anti-town, but I don't necessarily find the person scummy.

For example, I'm very suspicious of your case on RC. I'm thinking less and less that it's scummy because you honestly seem to believe every word of it. I'll do a quick re-read later tonight (or tomorrow if I don't get a chance tonight (and hopefully remember to read one of Jason's games when I get a chance)) to see where my vote should be.

[Toro]

There's a difference between 'looking' scummy and 'being' scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

Toro, was that in response to anything in particular or just a general comment?

[Idiotking]

If I say someone is scummy, it means I think that person is likely to be scum. If I say someone's suspicious, it means I think that person's play has been odd or anti-town, but I don't necessarily find the person scummy.

Ok, I guess I could see that. Like, suspicion is a lead-in to scummyness, maybe? I still think suspicious equals scummy, but I think I get what you're saying now.

[Toro]

Toro, was that in response to anything in particular or just a general comment?

I was just offering my opinion on what you and IK were saying.

[DTMaster]

Time to catch up again. Sorry guys but I've been working more hours lately. :<

@IK

And as I've already repeatedly said, I don't like voting people when 1. they've already got too many votes on them and 2. it's too early in the game. I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

How about started by others? Shine and I started the RC analysis. I would add vagueness to your argument against RC though with his recent 1 line finishers with his responses. See:

Well, that's for you to figure out now, isn't it? Wink

This is a big call for a meta check on RC (but I can't do it right now since I have another long shift tomorrow) before you continue this debate.

195: BTW Anti-town and pro-scum are different. Some people who are town aligned can be very anti town. Take lurking for an example, usually associated with scum or PRs.

@DRK

What would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?

I don't want to answer for RC but I think he did in his 184.

RC: Can you clarify why you chose to not reveal your reason for the dank vote in your first post?

Offtopic: Math nerd You have the proof to Fermat's last theorem in reserve, page numbers and all? Though this would be a brutal post restriction if you could only post in mathematical proofs.

@Jason
Premature but helloo? You there still? Thoughts on my vote/point/etc? Just a reminder since it's gotten drowned in the other posts.

@Toro
What is your answer to your own question?

@Town
If you find you confirm a meta check can you link the game and such please? I'll do the same when I get a chance to.

[Toro]

RC, where did I imply that?

DTM are you referring to this?

[alexhans]

Those in danger of suppression #8:

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

Idiotking (1)

-

DeathRowKitty

jasonT1981 (1)

-

DTMaster

RedCoyote (1)

-

Idiotking

toro (3)

-

hihop, Paradoxombie, dank

Not Voting (4)

-

, Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981, RedCoyote

Happiness with Posting Level:

SATISFIED

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[RedCoyote]

By the way Jason, you still haven't told us who could be scum on that bw. Here I will put down names:
Dtmaster, Dank, Zachrulez, DeathRowKitty, and Toro.

I like this post, it shows hiphop is asking jason to be more specific and that he's interested in persuing something potentially vauge on jason's part.

---

instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway.

How would you know that I would've gotten the same information had I not made a post? How do you know what is and isn't helpful for me to try and piece together information about other players?

You shouldn't have had to have time to respond since we should have gotten the explanation in the first place.

I disagree, all players, regardless of how I feel about them, should be given a reasonable amount of time to defend themselves or explain their point of view.

Am I blaming others, Ik?

Sure as hell sounds like it.

Who do I sound like I am blaming?

---

Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable.

I think this is a good point. I don't think this is the first time Ik has tried to disguise a little small but critical comment into a larger post. The more I push Ik, the less I'm liking his responses. I expect resistance, no doubt, but one thing that has really caught my eye is this,

[RC has] to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless [he] can come up with something better than [he has], my opinion isn't going to be changed.

The more I think about this, the less I like the implication. This exchange between me and Ik isn't about me trying to "change his opinion" at all. I feel as though it's a player's duty to respond to anyone who has comments or questions specifically for them, but, even beyond that, it's a townie's duty to try and feel out players as best they can. There are few better ways to do this than with direct Q&A.

In other words, this comment is a red flag to me. I'm not sure if Ik thinks I am out to "change his opinion" or if he is just trying to frame me in that way (e.g. RC is acting defensive again).

I think Toro was alluding to the fact that hiphop was already voting for him, not that he was going with the flow.

Ah, okay. I missed that.

---

And as I've already repeatedly said, I don't like voting people when 1. they've already got too many votes on them and 2. it's too early in the game.

Why? Were you worried hiphop would've been quick lynched if you put him at L-4 or L-3? Were you worried that it would make you look bad?

I think it's pretty defensive when [RC] says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.

Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.

I'm going to

vote: Idiotking

on the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

He has CONVINCED you that it wasn't, which is EXACTLY the thing that keeps him from being suspect. If it was random, he's suspicious. But if he comes up with a plausible enough excuse, you'll believe him and he's off the hook. I don't get how this isn't obvious.

Am I trying to convince people, Ik? Am I making up "excuses" to get myself "off the hook"?

---

RC, where did I imply that?

When you said "don't read the votecount", I thought you were sarcastically making the implication that hiphop was just joining your wagon because it was the largest. Were you?

---

Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.

No one is advocating for three page long days, nor would your vote necessarily have caused a three page long day.

I have not lost this argument because I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong yet. If anything, I'm becoming more convinced as time goes on.

This argument isn't about winning or losing. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. You have every right to argue that my vote was random and that you think I am covering it up.

Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive.

If I was asking people why they thought it was random and it wasn't, would that be defensive as well?

Why would he question the intentions of the people who suspect him?

I question everyone's intentions, regardless of their position on me. That's my duty in this game.

RC says he voted dank for being a grammar nazi, basically, even though more suspicious things had happened by that point.

This is grossly mistaken. I voted dank for knowingly taking advantage of a newer player.

Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?

This is a false dilemma, a logical fallacy used to corner people into choosing from two extremes when there are other alternatives available.

I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.

You have to change opinion to not get voted, and RC has not changed my opinion.

Should that be a townie's responsibility in Mafia? To try not to get voted?

---

RC: Can you clarify why you chose to not reveal your reason for the dank vote in your first post?

As I've said, I was gauging reactions to my comment. It's not an altogether uncommon strategy, but it does entail a degree of risk. I think good quality scumhunting can be done when reading who people go on offense against, how they do this, what arguments they use, etc.

[DeathRowKitty]

I did a re-read and I'm happy with where my vote is. I still don't like Jason's posts, but IK is definitely scummiest right now in my eyes. I don't have much new to add, but I came back to the same post again:

Yeah... it's much too early for a lynch. However, I do agree with the sentiment about hiphop; his deflecting is suspicious. Not to mention, it's 1. never a good thing to play the newbie card and 2. if this actually is his 3rd game the newbie card is kinda old.

And no, hiphop, as Toro says, at this point I'm pretty sure most scum would have written you off as dead weight. You've sort of exploded in scummyness.

The more I look at this post, the less I like it. First it was the "exploded in scumminess comment. It's almost as if IK is saying "I'm not sure I want to be a part of this, but he is suspicious, so if you guys want to put another vote or two on him, it might be a good thing." Obviously, that's just one way of reading it, but it's definitely a possibility.

Offtopic: Math nerd You have the proof to Fermat's last theorem in reserve, page numbers and all? Though this would be a brutal post restriction if you could only post in mathematical proofs.

Doesn't everyone? Anyone who's looking for the proof (I'm sure you're all looking for it ) can find it here. Guess it's only 109 pages. I seem to remember hearing 150.

[DTMaster]

Urk. Note to self sleep first, then post.

@Toro
I meant statement. So this:

There's a difference between 'looking' scummy and 'being' scummy.

@RC
Your reasoning for your vote, and such can be argued by OMGUS. Abet it has more ground then if you voted me when I first attacked your "first post", it is still an unfavorable position to be in. What do you have to say to the OMGUS argument?

As I've said, I was gauging reactions to my comment. It's not an altogether uncommon strategy, but it does entail a degree of risk. I think good quality scumhunting can be done when reading who people go on offense against, how they do this, what arguments they use, etc.

Interesting style and quite effective. I can see your POV for this.

[RedCoyote]

@RC
Your reasoning for your vote, and such can be argued by OMGUS. Abet it has more ground then if you voted me when I first attacked your "first post", it is still an unfavorable position to be in. What do you have to say to the OMGUS argument?

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever. I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.

I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.

[Idiotking]

How about started by others? Shine and I started the RC analysis. I would add vagueness to your argument against RC though with his recent 1 line finishers with his responses.

Started by others is fine, so long as I'm not purely borrowing and avoiding adding input of my own.

195: BTW Anti-town and pro-scum are different. Some people who are town aligned can be very anti town. Take lurking for an example, usually associated with scum or PRs.

PRs are town, they shouldn't be lurking in the first place. In that sense they hurt the town, which helps scum since scum are on a different team as town. Anything that hurts one team helps the other, directly or indirectly.

How would you know that I would've gotten the same information had I not made a post? How do you know what is and isn't helpful for me to try and piece together information about other players?

I'll respond to this with a counter-question: do you deny that it would be quite possible to have discerned the same information had you posted your reasoning in your first post? Your reactions have basically gleaned the same thing they would have by simple analysis of the thread, which amounts to townie reads everyone involved with you (with me as the obvious exception).

I don't give a damn what is and isn't helpful to YOU. I care about what is and isn't helpful to the TOWN. Poking your neck out in a risky, pointless move like that does NOT HELP THE TOWN. Are you sticking to your guns here and saying it DID?

I disagree, all players, regardless of how I feel about them, should be given a reasonable amount of time to defend themselves or explain their point of view.

For most things, yes. For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

Who do I sound like I am blaming?

Nice how you cut out the other quote I put with it. It sounds like you're blaming

me

for suspecting you (makes a whole lot more sense since you vote for me in the post I'm responding to).

I think this is a good point. I don't think this is the first time Ik has tried to disguise a little small but critical comment into a larger post.

I already responded to DRK's statement, I'd like for you to address my response as well, please.

The more I push Ik, the less I'm liking his responses.

Ditto.

I expect resistance, no doubt, but one thing that has really caught my eye is this,

[RC has] to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless [he] can come up with something better than [he has], my opinion isn't going to be changed.

The more I think about this, the less I like the implication. This exchange between me and Ik isn't about me trying to "change his opinion" at all. I feel as though it's a player's duty to respond to anyone who has comments or questions specifically for them, but, even beyond that, it's a townie's duty to try and feel out players as best they can. There are few better ways to do this than with direct Q&A.

It's about changing opinion. Opinions are votes. People make cases to change the opinions of the other players. This whole game is opinion based, forming an opinion of a player and then using logic to change the opinions of the other players into agreeing with you. Do you deny that Q&A changes opinions? Do you deny that it helps form an opinion of your own based on the questions/responses?

In other words, this comment is a red flag to me. I'm not sure if Ik thinks I am out to "change his opinion" or if he is just trying to frame me in that way (e.g. RC is acting defensive again).

I think you

should

be out to change my opinion. I think that's how this game is played. This game is all about manipulation of opinions, which equal votes.

Let's say I am of the opinion that Person A is townie. Person B thinks Person A is scum. Person B builds a case against Person A to convince the rest of the town that his opinion is correct. If I'm of a different opinion than Person B,

will I vote for Person A, even though in my opinion he is a townie?

Why? Were you worried hiphop would've been quick lynched if you put him at L-4 or L-3? Were you worried that it would make you look bad?

No. I don't care if I look bad, which is why I don't mind pursuing an unpopular case (you). If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.

Having too many votes on someone that early in the game helps nothing. What would pressure do? There's nothing to go on, no facts, just subjectivity. I've already made my statements about fact and logic, about there being none in the early game. No legitimate case can be built because nothing much has happened yet. Pressure votes only amount to so much when there isn't a significant case. Excess votes don't add pressure at all, as mine would have been. Votes mean nothing early in the game, save for the formation of bandwagons to be inspected. It is just too early in the game for a bandwagon to form.

Let's say you were at L-4 on Page 3. Somebody else votes you and puts you at L-3. Would you personally, really feel any more pressure? Or would it just be numbers? I know I wouldn't even notice.

Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.

I'm going to

vote: Idiotking

on the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.

And you prove my point masterfully.

I've been going over and over this time and time again. It's subtle, but it's present, that defensiveness that is always there. Defensiveness begets OMGUS, and in my opinion this is an OMGUS vote we have here.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

I'm afraid I'm not going to retract this statement, ever. I did show an example of where you specifically called someone out as suspicious becaue they suspected you,

you deleted it from your response

. Or, if you're not willing to go through and find it, here's a hint:

"Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?"

Or you could, y'know, just look up a few paragraphs.

Am I trying to convince people, Ik? Am I making up "excuses" to get myself "off the hook"?

Yes, yes you are. Every single read I get from you indicates this.

No one is advocating for three page long days, nor would your vote necessarily have caused a three page long day.

Do you think my vote would have helped anything?

This argument isn't about winning or losing. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. You have every right to argue that my vote was random and that you think I am covering it up.

S'exactly what I'm doing.

If I was asking people why they thought it was random and it wasn't, would that be defensive as well?

Hypothetically? No, defensiveness implies hostility. But I simply cannot believe that it wasn't random. All evidence points to it being random and your excuse as a coverup. As such, I see it as defensive.

I question everyone's intentions, regardless of their position on me. That's my duty in this game.

Do you believe that you have received accurate, can-stay-the-same-through-the-course-of-the-game-no-matter-what information, or do you believe that your gamble helped you ascertain the intentions of a few people on just one instance?

This is grossly mistaken. I voted dank for knowingly taking advantage of a newer player.

Which you shortly thereafter unvoted him on with only token discussion. Do you still believe dank knowningly took advantage of a new player, now that you're no longer voting for him?

I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

Given the information available, people have to have formed an opinion one way or the other. I think it's a perfectly valid tactic to make them take all information available and form their own opinion from it.

Should that be a townie's responsibility in Mafia? To try not to get voted?

Did I imply that it was? I just said simple fact. People defend themselves so they don't get voted, or at the very least so that when they die their arguments receive due validation. It's to change opinion, and as I've already said, this game is all about opinion.

As for me, unless something else occurs to change my opinion, I'm willing to push this case right to the grave, for you or for me.


@DRK: You seem to be basing a lot of, if not most, of your case against me purely off of that post, or rather, your interpretation of it. Has anything else I've done piqued your interest?

[DeathRowKitty]

@DRK: You seem to be basing a lot of, if not most, of your case against me purely off of that post, or rather, your interpretation of it. Has anything else I've done piqued your interest?

Glad you asked. That is in no way the only thing I have against you, just a post that I keep coming back to. Here are some reasons I think you're scum (in no particular order):

1.

That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).

You later said you've done this once other time. It also sounds like a way to try to avoid suspicion in the RVS.
2.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?

The whole "investigating the bandwagon" sounds like a big excuse to me.
3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.
4. Your odd desire to prevent anyone from having more than 1 or 2 votes makes no sense unless you're trying to appear pro-town.

I don't have time to post more now, but I'm pretty sure this list isn't all-inclusive.

[Idiotking]

1.

That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).

You later said you've done this once other time. It also sounds like a way to try to avoid suspicion in the RVS.

The other time I did this was as a townie... and like I said, the first game I had on this site I lurked (didn't post anything at all during RVS if I remember correctly) and the third I replaced into, completely missing the RVS stage. There are other games on other sites in which I've used the same reasoning. I just haven't been here long enough to give any more examples. I don't understand your suspicion on this point.

2.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?

The whole "investigating the bandwagon" sounds like a big excuse to me.

Ok. An excuse for what? To avoid being observed, studied? To get out of scumhunting? If that was the reason I made that 'excuse', why would I be pursuing RC like this now?

3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.

Examples, please. Elaborate.

4. Your odd desire to prevent anyone from having more than 1 or 2 votes makes no sense unless you're trying to appear pro-town.

More than 1 or 2 votes by Page 3 are simply too many. I'd like to use the first few pages of THIS game to show you why I think this. Please review it.

I don't have time to post more now, but I'm pretty sure this list isn't all-inclusive.

I sure hope it isn't. It bugs me that in the last few posts when you've tried to bring up more examples of my 'scummy behavior', this is the best you can come up with.

[Idiotking]

Also, now I'm beginning to wonder about buddying. I'm biased on this, though, since I'm the one being suspected by the two. We need outside opinions.

TOWN! Is it possible that DRK and RC are buddying each other ever so slightly, or is this just me being paranoid?

[Paradoxombie]

@RC
Your reasoning for your vote, and such can be argued by OMGUS. Abet it has more ground then if you voted me when I first attacked your "first post", it is still an unfavorable position to be in. What do you have to say to the OMGUS argument?

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

I have trouble believing this. Your original post was intended to garner a reaction. A player reacts strongly to it, including a vote on you. I would expect that to have bearing on your vote on him; it seems strange to disregard it.

[dank]

Sorry for the lack of participation lately, I had an unexpected week of work added on at the last minute.

Anyway,

Mod:

I will be going on vacation monday until the 23rd, which is a pretty long period of time. I don't want to hold the game up, since I will not have any internet access, so it might be a wise idea to replace me. I'm still willing to play of course, but I don't want to hold the game up.

Not sure what to do about that. But otherwise, I will try to catch up and post my thoughts later today.

[Paradoxombie]

3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.

I think they've both blown it out of proportion. Quote wars like that are annoying, and nobody gets their point across. It's hard to find either scummy for it because it seem mutually destructive.

[Idiotking]

Strange, I thought 'quote wars', as you put it, were a basic form of discussion, addressing each issue in its many parts.

[DeathRowKitty]

Ok. An excuse for what? To avoid being observed, studied? To get out of scumhunting? If that was the reason I made that 'excuse', why would I be pursuing RC like this now?

You were being suspected for your unvote when you saw an RVS bandwagon start. Looking into the bandwagon could have been an excuse for why you unvoted and would seemingly be a pro-town thing to do. The fact that you later said there was nothing to analyze just makes it more likely that you were just using that as an excuse. All of this has been brought up already. I'm not even sure why you had to ask.

You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.

Examples, please. Elaborate.

A few selected quotes from your last post:

For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

I still don't see why that was

obviously

a random vote.

Who do I sound like I am blaming?

Nice how you cut out the other quote I put with it. It sounds like you're blaming me for suspecting you (makes a whole lot more sense since you vote for me in the post I'm responding to).

If he's blaming you for suspecting him, then why didn't he vote you as soon as you started attacking him? He gave specific posts as to why he's voting you and I think he would have been completely justified in voting you even earlier.

Let's say I am of the opinion that Person A is townie. Person B thinks Person A is scum. Person B builds a case against Person A to convince the rest of the town that his opinion is correct. If I'm of a different opinion than Person B, will I vote for Person A, even though in my opinion he is a townie?

You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.

Let's say you were at L-4 on Page 3. Somebody else votes you and puts you at L-3. Would you personally, really feel any more pressure? Or would it just be numbers? I know I wouldn't even notice.

I would definitely notice. L-4 doesn't mean much. It means you should definitely be defending yourself, but that's it. L-3 (in my mind) is starting to get into more dangerous territory. Remember that L-2 is where claims are often forced. L-3 means that you're one bad move or one stupid sentence away from possibly being put in claim territory.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

I'm afraid I'm not going to retract this statement, ever. I did show an example of where you specifically called someone out as suspicious becaue they suspected you, you deleted it from your response. Or, if you're not willing to go through and find it, here's a hint:

"Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?"

Complete misrepresentation of what RC said. RC doesn't suspect you for finding him suspicious. He suspects you (the way I'm reading his posts) because you're trying to blow this completely out of proportion.

I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.



The key point here: you said you're waiting for him to change your opinion, yet you refuse to have your opinion changed! You're not looking for him to confirm that he's pro-town and as far as I can see, you never have been. You came into this argument with the assumption that he's scum and refuse to relinquish that assumption, no matter how many times your points get refuted. Your argument (that you basically stole from others) initially was that RC random voted out of the RVS. After all this arguing, that's still all you have and I really doubt it's even right. You're willing to argue any little thing he says as if you're hoping something will trip him up and get him lynched.

I don't see how that game you posted has any relevance to your situation. First of all, you weren't even there for the first few pages. Second of all,

no one was lynched in the first few pages

. When the lynch finally occurred, it was 16 or 17 pages in and only because of a deadling. What does that game have to do with not wanting to put a 3rd vote on someone on page 3?

[DeathRowKitty]

Quote wars like that are annoying

Sorry about my last post, but there was no other way to make that post.