Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Untrue. I just yet to have anything concrete to add. I have yet to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've yet to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have yet to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

This isn't entirely true, since you've expressed agreement with some of GC's attack on camn. I don't think you responded to Ether's question about this - what's your read of camn?

I agreed with GC saying that the burden of proof was on Camn when she says something to back it up with evidence. I made no comment on the actual case made against Camn.

My read of camn is that camn has yet to do anything scummy enough to warrant attention or a vote. Her initial vote was meta-based, which is as good as any for an opening vote. I don't necessaril;y suppoirt the notion of voting people based on meta-reads, but I've seen and heard enough people consider certain posters as policy lynches based on how their play has a tendency to affect the early development of the game to know that this is not necessarily indicative of any alignment.

The defensiveness displayed when challenged for the meta-vote was a tad surprising for this early in the game, but I don't know enough about camn to put this in context and determine whether it's scummy or not. Whilst you have to take any polayer's description of themself with a pinch of salt, it's entirely consistent with her charaicterisation that "...my emotions are a part of my play." It's something to keep any eye on for future reference and to put future behaviour in context, but otherwise, not indicative of anything really.

=======================

Page 5 Votecount

camn (2/7): Korts, Green Crayons
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (3/7): Ether, Incognito, charter
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (1/7): camn
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (1/7): OhGodMyLife
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (1/7): Yosarian2
Yosarian2 (0/7):

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, Patrick,

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

X, clarify your Patrick interaction for me because this is how I'm reading it:

Patrick's posting style (including those phrases you pointed out) make it look like he's just making up points to engage/attack other players. This is because he doesn't actually see anything that grabs his attention, but he feels it is necessary to speak up about some point, even if it's entirely contrived. This is dishonest and scummy.

However

, you do not want him to change this dishonest and scummy behavior. And somehow, by asserting that he will not change his play style because he finds it to be a perfectly acceptable mode of play, you think he's town.

Basically:
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! It's scummy!
Patrick: Actually, I don't find Action Y to be scummy at all.
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! He's town!


It looks like to me you just threw something out there to see if it would stick. You get to look active without chancing having to commit to anything. Once Patrick basically said the exact opposite of you, you pulled a 180 and shut down the conversation.

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

(please reply)

[Green Crayons]

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Your post suggested that Patrick's posting was suspicious and scummy. Patrick explains that's how he always plays and finds it good and reasonable. That means it's how he plays - regardless of alignment. By you saying that you don't want him to change his play style means that you want his play style to be scummy and suspicious to you regardless of his alignment. You don't even make a concession that this might not be a good thing. Instead, it's like you're actively hoping to be in camn's shoes where you have a consistently skewed read on

charter

Patrick.

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

This only confirms the feeling I got from your posts that you were throwing something out there just to see if anything would stick - in fact, you seem to be embracing that notion. I find this suspicious because of three reasons:
One, because it looks like you're doing exactly what you were calling Patrick out for (just coming up with reasons to criticize another player that you don't particularly believe).
Two, because it looks like you're attempting to look active without actually contributing (he's scummy/suspicious acting! + he's town acting! = useless/null read)
Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact.

unvote, vote: X

. While I think camn's weird refusal to answer (just about) anything put to her and general resistance to actually make a solid point (this being the fruit of our back and forth - so it wasn't all for naught), it's not something I will forget simply by unvoting. And maybe her future behavior will turn for the better when she gets her feet planted. Besides, I think my X suspicions are more substantive than those regarding camn.

[Xdaamno]

pfffft

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Your post suggested that Patrick's posting was suspicious and scummy. Patrick explains that's how he always plays and finds it good and reasonable. That means it's how he plays - regardless of alignment. By you saying that you don't want him to change his play style means that you want his play style to be scummy and suspicious to you regardless of his alignment. You don't even make a concession that this might not be a good thing. Instead, it's like you're actively hoping to be in camn's shoes where you have a consistently skewed read on

charter

Patrick.

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle. This was as a rebuttal to his "I'm not gonna change" defense, so I was not actually implying anything. The only "do not change" statement I made was, quote, "If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it?" Big difference.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

This only confirms the feeling I got from your posts that you were throwing something out there just to see if anything would stick - in fact, you seem to be embracing that notion. I find this suspicious because of three reasons:
One, because it looks like you're doing exactly what you were calling Patrick out for (just coming up with reasons to criticize another player that you don't particularly believe).
Two, because it looks like you're attempting to look active without actually contributing (he's scummy/suspicious acting! + he's town acting! = useless/null read)
Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact.

unvote, vote: X

. While I think camn's weird refusal to answer (just about) anything put to her and general resistance to actually make a solid point (this being the fruit of our back and forth - so it wasn't all for naught), it's not something I will forget simply by unvoting. And maybe her future behavior will turn for the better when she gets her feet planted. Besides, I think my X suspicions are more substantive than those regarding camn.

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall, here's the rebuttal to your three points:

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?
Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.
Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

(actually, that was tougher than I thought. The falsity of his statements was obvious, but the actual fallacies were tougher than I thought.)

[charter]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

Because Skitzer's confirmation time was directly relevent to someone else's attempts at scum hunting. Ensuring that people don't come to incorrect conclusions is kinda important.

You seem to be confusing scum-hunting with asking a lot of questions. Sure, that's one valid approach. Another is to find the right question to ask at the right time. Think of it as the difference between a blunderbus and a sniper rifle. A blunderbus fires widely, covering a wide area and giving a greater chance of hitting the target. A sniper rifle firse a single shot aimed at a specific spot to give a good chance of hitting it's target. Both are perfectly capable ways of trying to kill someone, they just work in different ways.

As for the reason behind your vote and accusation that it's not content... well, would you expect me to just ignore something when someone, as Incognito did, uses it as a reason to vote for you. I answered his charge. That's hardly a content-free "Look, I'm here" post. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use your blunderbus-style question everything approach, surekly you expect people to answer? I mean, if they don't, you'd have a hard timn escum-hunting, wouldn't you?

You're not questioning anybody at all. I'm not saying you need to question everyone, but in your post responding to his vote, you directly contradicted yourself, and failed to do any semblence of scumhunting.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I am not contradicting myself at all - you just don't understand different methods of scum-hunting. Please stop being dense.

[OhGodMyLife]

camn, how do you feel about charter now?

[Yosarian2]

I was tempted to vote someone who hadn't posted yet, as per my standard vote at that stage, but everyone had posted

Your attention to detail is lacking. This is my first post.

Yeah, i noticed that later.

I wanted to vote patrick, but he already is managing to give me pro-town vibes with his magical "I always give Yosarian protown vibes" machine, damn his eyes

I'd love for you to elucidate on this. As of post 45, the only vibe I'm getting from Patrick is that he's been unusually non-interactive.

Don't mind me...like I was saying, I always seem to read Patrick as town, something about his tone. Probably dosn't mean anything.

I am wondering, though, why you think Patrick is scum.

[Patrick]

Xdaamno, you said you find my phrasing suspect, I replied by telling you that it's nothing out of the ordinary. The whole, "I never asked you to change" thing is a red herring at this point that seems to ignore the more important issue of whether or not my posting is scummy or out of character. The way you've gone about this doesn't really leave me the impression of someone trying to figure me out or get reactions, because as soon as I responded you seem to try and close off the discussion straight away. I ask you again: what do you find scummy about my questioning of OGML?


The one thing I don't like about Izzy's play is that it looked like she was supporting GC's case against camn, and now she's saying she wasn't commenting on the actual case: I could see a situation where she was trying to support it, but is trying to wipe her hands clean of it now that it's not going anywhere. I'd rather see some more solid opinions from her before making up my mind though, and I'm not really seeing the inconsistency charter says he sees in her play. Also, charter, you switched votes onto Incognito on page 1 after Ether explained her reasoning, why do that if you don't see anything scummy about confirming late?

[camn]

Hi.

Charter

- Not as scummy right now as I am sure he will end up being.
I am impressed by the non-scumminess he displayed in those 4 games.. so I officially soften my contention that charter=alwaysscummy. I also am interested in his case on Dizzy.
I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?

Let us examine:

I know someone in scumchat was complaining about skitzer not confirming holding up the start of a game last night. Perhaps he is the shenanigan starter?

unvote, vote skitzer

......
Incognito could have confirmed last night, and it would still have been nearly 48 hours after PMs were originally sent out. If he hadn't had anyone to check in with, I think he would have.

These are clearly identical.
I will follow this thread:

16- Incog refutes Ether Dizzy n/a
20- Patric refutes Dizzy, Ignores Ether.
23- Korts defies Ether's whole premise.. ignores Dizzy.
24- GC refutes Ether, ignores Dizzy
32- DIZZY UNVOTES, yet
36, 37, 41- continues to build a case.
42- Ether votes DIZZY. The plot thickens.
49, 59, 69- Dizzy implies her vote was RVS.
81, 84- or just to make a point/ or for pressure.

86- Incog rightfully states Dizzy isn't hunting.
90- Dizzy disagrees.
-->Charter piles on.

Hm.
My interpretation: Dizzy's vote on skitzer was a pressure vote?
Dizzy - why wouldn't you just say that to begin with? Your point about Ether's Incog vote was unclear, and I tend to think charter's vote on you is justified. If you aren't hunting.. don't say you are! I am not hunting right now. I am still trying to match up Avatars and Names.

Anyway.. I just spent hella long looking at this wierd interaction.. and I really don't have anything to show for it.

Sorry! Here it is anyway.

[Incognito]

Untrue. I just

yet

to have anything concrete to add. I have

yet

to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've

yet

to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have

yet

to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

That's a lot of "yets".

Would you agree or disagree with me when I say that >70% of your posts have been in response to things directed at you and not many have seemed to take the initiative to figure people out? If so, I'd call that not scum hunting.

@Xdaamno's 93:

Does it bother you that I too called out DizzyIzzy for not scum hunting by page 4? What's the difference between my calling her out for this and charter's?

Well why didn't you just say so in the first place? As for agreeing with Patrick re: my stance on "vibes," see above.

Because at the time, I knew

something

felt off about it but I couldn't put my finger on what it was that did. Since you commented on it in your opening post, I thought about what it was I thought was off about it and mentioned it. I still feel like there's even more to it than that but yeah.

(It also kinda serves a secondary function of determining who's actually

reading

my posts, which is kinda cool.)

[Green Crayons]

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle.

I never said that you started out with the intent to change his play, nor did I mean to suggest at any point you attempted to ask him to change his style of play. What struck me is that you call out his play as scummy/suspicious, he explains its his normal play and that he's not going to change, you decide to embrace his normal play as an acceptable scum tell (by suggesting "I'm just observing - don't change!"). You could have said anything when Patrick suggested this was his normal play (e.g. "Well, I'll keep that in mind," "Well, it seems scummy to me - you should keep that in mind," "Well, I find that to be bogus because X, Y and Z."). But instead, you embraced it - so that by the time you realized that his normal, everyday play would be considered scummy and suspicious to you, you welcomed it ("...wasn't asking you to change" in 91) and supported its continuance ("...why would I want [Patrick] to change [his behavior]?" in 101). Instead of addressing and even acknowledging the fact that his

normal play

was considered "suspicious" and "scummy" to you, you were happy to have him continue on his way in order to pin him later on it.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

If you can say that Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style, then in any instance you can say that Patrick is scum (because of his play style) and therefore must be lynched (regardless of his alignment). But, I mean: seriously? Are you really asking me this after I just had this conversation with camn?

Have you been paying attention to the thread at all

, scumbag?

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall...

I find your "gauging reactions" to be "throwing shit at a wall." I don't find all attempts to gauge reactions to be throwing shit. Just yours (for the time being).

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?

1. Because your point is weak.
2. Because you give little support for your point.
3. Because you're attempting to "gauge Patrick's reaction," and then promptly drop the line of questioning. Which is bullshit. That's like me asking "HEY CAMN! Are you scum?" With a reply of "No! Of course not!" and me going "Oh. Okay. ... Just checking! Thx!"

Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.

No it isn't you big fat liar. You give no reasonable explanation why you pulled a 180 after Patrick's response. No follow up question. No explanation. Just: Oh, You're so totally town after I just accused you of being suspicious and scummy! It looks like Patrick could have said "Durr Durr I enjoy eating peanut butter..." and you would have gone "Town!" Your "Town!" response is so contrived, it doesn't matter what Patrick's response could have been - you would have said the exact same thing.

Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?



You smell. It stinks. I'm catching some serious wafts of rotting scum. Time to bag 'em up!

I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe. (<3)

[camn]

Unvote : Green Crayons

You rule.

[Ether]

I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? (For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

After starting this aside with "for the record" I was half-tempted to load it with more qualifiers but I won't.

)

Camn, what do you think of Izzy? (And you still haven't answered my questions about patterns you're used to from Charter, but whatever.)

Izzy, what do you think of Xdaamno, Korts and Yosarian2?

I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?

Skitzer was gone across the board--if he sent in confirmations to multiple games at the same time, that wouldn't imply that he was putting them off; just that he'd been held up. In contrast, I thought at the time that Incognito had stalled in sending a confirmation

after

picking up his role PM. And personally, my Izzyhate is pretty much unrelated to her Skitzvote anyway.

I'm pretty sure the town reads on me have little to do with the above, either; they're almost certainly meta. (I'm a bit bitter about that...I feel like my grip on this game could be much stronger than it currently is. But I'll take it.)

[camn]

i dont really have much more of a read on Dizzy than my comments above. I looked pretty hard at you two, but I didn't really come up with anything to show for it!

I also dont intend on commenting any more on charter-meta unless >I< think it is relevant. I linked the games. The whole thing got way too much attention for a typical camn grudge-vote! Clearly, I am out of my league in this game! But I think I can keep up. Maybe.

[Ether]

Meh.

On an unrelated note, the timing of your unvote implies that you're not scum with Xdaamno.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

My interpretation: Dizzy's vote on skitzer was a pressure vote?
Dizzy - why wouldn't you just say that to begin with? Your point about Ether's Incog vote was unclear, and I tend to think charter's vote on you is justified. If you aren't hunting.. don't say you are! I am not hunting right now. I am still trying to match up Avatars and Names.

I thought it was clear enough in the first place, but it obviously wasn't, hence the clarification. And, I'm always scum-hunting to an extent. I'm always looking for clues and hints and attempting to form opinions and cases and such. Just because I'm not asking questions and challenging people doesn't mean I'm not analysing their every word.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

The one thing I don't like about Izzy's play is that it looked like she was supporting GC's case against camn, and now she's saying she wasn't commenting on the actual case: I could see a situation where she was trying to support it, but is trying to wipe her hands clean of it now that it's not going anywhere.

I thought the fact that I said GC made a good point and then spent the rest of the post solely focusing on the statement that the burden of proof was on Camn made it clear enough what I was agreeing with. If not, I apologise and I'll try and be more clear in the future.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Izzy, what do you think of Xdaamno, Korts and Yosarian2?

Xdaamno: Null read. His reasoning for his Patrick vote was sound enough, I guess. Interesting that after he seemed to be satisfied by the response to his points he didn't unvote, but that just strikes me as slightly careless. He's been logical enough so far, so there's nothing that screams "Not Town" about him or his behhaviour. Six posts is not enough to go on, though, without bringing in meta-analysis and if I did that, I;'d have voted for him because he's not being as scummy as I've experienced him act when he's town in the past.

Korts: Seems to be adequately acting in a pro-town manner. I don't really have much to say about him, he hasn't contributed enough for more than a slight pro-town vibe.

Yos: Based on past experience, I have trouble reading Yos. So, I'm not saying anything about him 'till I can get a handle on him.

[Incognito]

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe. (<3)

wut

[Xdaamno]

I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? (For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

After starting this aside with "for the record" I was half-tempted to load it with more qualifiers but I won't.

)

What reason could I have to unvote him? At this stage of the game, I don't use votes purely as an indicator of who I suspect.

[Green Crayons]

You said that you voted him because "it [applied] pressure" (103). He gave you a response that you seemed incredibly favorable towards. Whatever pressure that may have been needed (really, though? none) from a vote became obsolete as soon as you pulled your 180.

So, the reason for an unvote would be because your vote served its "purpose." Continuing to maintain your obsolete vote instead of simply unvoting for the time being is entirely pointless. But because the purpose you have given for your vote is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote.

[Patrick]

Vote: Xdaamno

[Xdaamno]

You said that you voted him because "it [applied] pressure" (103). He gave you a response that you seemed incredibly favorable towards. Whatever pressure that may have been needed (really, though? none) from a vote became obsolete as soon as you pulled your 180.

So, the reason for an unvote would be because your vote served its "purpose." Continuing to maintain your obsolete vote instead of simply unvoting for the time being is entirely pointless. But because the purpose you have given for your vote is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

You could argue the suspiscion is a negative because I am hurting the town by making myself look scummy arbitrarily, but I think that is balanced out by gaining trust because people agree with my logic, which I expect them to, turtles-all-the-way-down style.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts. Even if this wasn't true, and my posts were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

[Green Crayons]

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.

If the vote was made to apply pressure (which it wasn't) and that pressure produced a result (a town read from Patrick's response), there is no reason to keep your vote there. It served its purpose and may lead people to think you think Patrick is still worth voting (even though the stated purpose of your vote has elapsed, you aren't questioning him any further and you seem content with your most recent label of him as performing town actions). Since at this point in the game you don't "use votes purely as an indicator of who [you] suspect" (120), your continued use of the vote for any purpose (pressure or suspicion indicator) doesn't make sense because no purpose continues to apply to the vote.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts.

Nope. You're starting to stink up this thread with all this crap you're spewing.

GC: "Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact." (102)
X: "Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure." (103)
GC: "Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?" (111)
X:

No response given

.

Even if this wasn't true, and

my posts

were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

(My emphasis.)
GC: "But because the

purpose you have given for your vote

is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote." (121 - My emphasis.)
I didn't call your post a lie, I called the after-the-fact purpose given for your vote (pressure on Patrick for him to answer) a lie. Nice attempt to shift the argument, but it isn't going to work.