Flying Dice: I'm going to address your points by without quoting that whole mess, to avoid a huge wall-o-text. If you think I've done wrong (posts out of context, misquotes, etc) then call me on it. Can't promise I'll be able to post a lot, but I'll see if I can address them, at least.
- It was really just a precursor to my argument. I didn't want people to think I'd ignored D1 entirely, but there's wasn't much of interest going on. Way to make it seem like a big deal, though.
- I never said you were Too-Town, quit putting words in my mouth. You and Shake each picked out a target, and attacked your target. You're just a little more vocal about it. You also mis-characterized the relationship between you and Shake. It's not that you didn't interact (because you certainly did), it's the fact that your interactions only bolstered each others cases. Damn near every post between you two was either a lead-in to pouring more fuel on the fire or gave you an avenue to back away from a controversial statement.
- See above. Damn near every interaction between you and Shake has been to bolster each other's cases.
- I think Tir's comment hit the mark, despite what you say. Did you know you use more quantifying/waffling words (I don't part when you get nervous?
- Oh fun, an OMGUS. Thanks. And of course I'm bummed that the Cop is dead, but I don't have to make an effort to fake it. I thought it was funny that you and Shake (and only you and Shake) posted questions like that. And before you shoot back, this isn't some grand lynchpin of my case like I'm sure you'd make it out to be. It was an interesting (to me) note that got exactly one sentence.
- Hey, thanks for breaking it down, it's appreciated. I'll do the same: What are your thoughts on Shakerag? Considering you've written a small novel in BM terms since my post and haven't so much as glanced at him sideways, y'know, I'm curious.
I'll try to address those without being too verbose.
1. I never said you specifically said that, but some of the accusations you were making read that way. Just because someone vocalizes their dislike for the way a lynch or night ended doesn't mean they're scum any more than not doing so does. Incidentally, that "shit" was at least as much a reaction to the mislynch as it was to IO being the cop/being NKed; you decided to speculate on my intentions regarding a statement that was a kneejerk response. In other words, "I think he is acting like town, therefore he is scum!" That's pretty much the definition of Too-Townie.
2. I don't believe I did, or at least I didn't notice it at the time. You're scraping together coincidences to try and form a case. Incidentally, the one comparison that leap to mind right away was that I've had a similar level and style of interaction with Theo, for much the same reasons* (see later)
3. *sighs*. That wasn't an OMGUS, that was me making a point about how screwy your logic was. You made an absurd, WIFOM-y connection, and I responded in kind to give an example of why your argument is frustrating.
My thoughts on Shakerag, along with a few other things: He honestly hasn't made a very big impression on me this game, likely in part because a lot of his posts have been IC-advice. If I had to rate him in terms of suspicion, he'd probably be slightly above Theo.
On that note, here's a summary of my current list of suspicions:
1. Chaos Armor, as per my extended argument. Most suspicious by far; I'm virtually certain he's scum.
2. Shakerag/Tiruin/You; Shake and Tiruin have both played fairly solid games and I haven't noticed anything remarkably suspicious; you're something like the third replacement for that 'slot' and I haven't had time to get a good read on you, though what I
have seen feels a lot like you last game.
3. Theodolus: I feel that he has played a
very solid game, though I haven't had as much direct interaction with him as I should have.
As I said, I don't really see anyone else in here as being nearly as suspicious as CA, though that will only be a problem for us if we manage to lynch scum. Everyone but him has put in what looks like a decent amount of effort into their investigations; he's the only living player I've seen pull a big defensive OMGUS and then try to retroactively claim that he was planning to do so anyways; he's been suspected by one person or another for most of the game, including both of the dead mislynches.
Flying Dice.
Hrrrrm, wait. Could you clarify how you concluded these?
3. Bother doing anything beyond saying "Your arguments are invalid but mine aren't"? Hah!
Hypocrite. You just stated that all of my arguments were fluff or rather, invalid. You did the same thing to Hapah too. In fact, that's most of what you have done. Call other people's arguments fluff, not bothering to actually answer. You are doing the exact same thing that you accused me of doing, hand waving it away.
So in other words, you're saying I'm scum for doing the exact same thing you are? Why, by that logic, we must be scumbuddies and you're trying to bus me. 
[...]
So yes, I think it could be argued that you started the bandwagon on BMC in that you made a vote which (while initially valid) went practically unsupported.
You're saying that I started a bandwagon and then sidelined. Yet the IC definition of starting a bandwagon is egging other players to start voting for that player. How did I start a bandwagon and sideline? bandwagon.
Maybe that was poor wording, but that was how I saw it. Your vote was the start of BMC's downhill ride, and it was downright irresponsible to not bother looking for reasons to keep your vote where it was. You were content to have your vote on someone, and you were happy to have a lynch, as long as it wasn't you. You didn't act like you cared who was lynched, and you didn't act like you were suspicious of me at all until I pressured you. All of that adds up to one thing in my eyes, scum.
On the second, you do know that BMC's downhill ride was based on how he reacted, yes? BMC did act scummy, but in my honest opinion, all I could see from CA was that he did lack time to post, and (well, for me) posts in Mafia take time to organize due to analysis and observation.
What makes you believe that CA is content to have his vote on someone and therefore happy to have a lynch in that method?
What is your stance on a mislynch?
On the first, I'll do a breakdown:
1. I accuse CA of only addressing peripheral parts of my argument and trying to build a case on insubstantial evidence.
2. He accuses me of being a hypocrite (though personally I think I have a much more solid argument than him), implying that
I am doing the same thing, which suggests that he is acknowledging that he is doing what I accused him of.
3. By his own statements, he and I are doing the same thing, and I am scum for doing so.
4. Therefore, by his own logic, he is also scum.
On the second:
1. CA was (IIRC) the very first RVS vote, and left his vote on BMC until the mislynch, yet had fewer lines of content!investigation than almost everyone else regarding the person he voted for. I recognize that he had limited internet access, but I would argue that if he were in a situation where he could not post frequently, he could still (and should have) taken the time to make his posts meatier. After all, if you only have the chance to make one post every two days or something, isn't it reasonable to put a bit more effort in than if you can make several posts per day? By that reasoning, I concluded that CA was using his (legitimate) internet problems to justify not doing much scumhunting when he
did post. I took this as an indication that he didn't really care who was lynched as long as somebody was.
My
stance on a mislynch?
Now children, mislynches are bad, mmkay?Hapah: Pretty much on your first content post, you laid into me. I don't think I've seen any suspicions of yours beyond this scumteam assumption (which, incidentally, is incredibly unwise in games where we don't have a PR with which to make absolute determinations of alignment/truth). Does anyone else pop up on your radar at all? What do you think about CA's statement that I am scummy for doing the same thing that he is?
Tiruin, Theodolus, Hapah, Shakerag: Do you see the arguments I'm making against CA? I'm afraid I might not have been as clear in text as I was in my mind. I don't care if you agree with it or not, I'm just curious to see if anyone else can understand the train of thought I followed to my conclusions.
Tiruin: You've voted one of the current six and FoSed two today; would you mind listing your suspicions (or lack thereof) on everyone still alive, and reasons for them?
Shakerag: I honestly haven't noticed either of us supporting the other; do you think there is solid reasoning behind Hapah's argument? I'm more interested in your answer as an IC for future reference.
And agreed on the musing: Let's not go swimming in the wine.
It
would be rather nice if we could all refrain from making arguments based on WIFOM, wouldn't it?
Incidentally, I'm working a very late night on the 4th followed by an early morning shift on the 5th, so I won't be available from ~4pm of the 4th until ~7pm of the 5th and will quite possibly be too tired/frustrated with workdrama to make coherent posts.
Author
Topic: Beginner's Mafia XXXIV: Nine-Life Ninja: GAME OVER, Scum Victory! (Read 65689 times)