Cool. I have everything written up, but it's pretty long. Do you guys mind the biggest wall of text I've ever seen, or would you like me to break it up?
I say wall it up.
you asked for it.
OK I'm back... Sorry for the lack of activity and the wall of text that's coming your way, but I haven't managed to find time the last few days to respond to all the accusations against me until now.
To find that every conversation was about me or Gun, and that Chink, despite attempting be helpful, has yet to post anything of content.
Chink:
Why the lack of content?
Griffinpup:
Sorry I didn't get to these before days-end:
The second time... I dislike the fact that you seem to be stockpiling cases against people. You are also asking for people to put in effort where you're not gaining anything, which is indicative that you are trying to make a presence in the game. If you don't gain anything from someone's reads why are you asking for them?
Stop putting words in my mouth! I never said that I had nothing to gain from someone's reads! In fact, I never even asked for the reads in the first place. I prodded at the confusing wordings of the reads, and that's it.
I may have been misinterpreting this:
1. Why do you need to know what precisely IG meant by his reads?
1. I don't.
What did you mean?
Apparently you have misinterpreted that. You see, not needing something doesn't mean that it's not in any way useful to me at any point in the game. I find reads useful. I don't find them necessary. I also don't need to know precisely what IG meant, although it might prove to be useful.
But to answer your first sentence. Explain what you mean. What "cases" would I be stockpiling, and why is that scummy?
What I mean is building a database with "Oh, he said so and so, he's opposed to that now, so he must be scum!" This is anti-town as it's lazy scum hunting; hypocrisy is NOT a scum tell, so building information on what the players are saying is... pointless.
I completely disagree. Hypocrisy is not what I'm looking for, but contradictions. Hypocrisy is telling people not to do something, while doing it yourself and is not necessarily scummy. Contradictions are saying and doing opposing things. Contradicting yourself IS scummy. It shows willingness to drastically change your play depending on the situation at hand to serve your best interests. Scum try to manipulate, and as such they change their play to best suit their needs. Also, scum tend to slip when pretending to scumhunt. Since they have to fabricate cases on people, it's more likely, in my opinion, that scum also will contradict themselves on what their opinion actually is, or have fallacious logic to back up their cases. Town, on the other hand, rarely change their style of play or do contradicting things. They have no need to. Their goal is to find scum. The way you go about scumhunting as town doesn't change enough throughout the game to create contradictions. The way scum attempt to manipulate town usually does.
The whole purpose of RVS is to find contradictions in people's play later on in the game. Why not find contradictions in how people are playing in other parts of the game as well?
But there's one really interesting sentence in this paragraph that I want to mention.
"building information on what people say is... pointless."
If building information on what people say is pointless, what do you build information on?
And to your second sentence, find me a REAL example of when I asked people to put forth effort when I'm not gaining anything.
... Here for instance:
And to your second sentence, find me a REAL example of when I asked people to put forth effort when I'm not gaining anything.
Using current information to prove a statement in the past is fallacious logic. Note this hypothetical. If I ask someone why they know that Dave was town in day one, and they later respond by quoting his role-flip, they managed to avoid the question as well as attempt to prove their prior reasoning by events and material that came out later. This implies that they actually didn't have valid reasoning prior to Dave's role flip. You just did a very similar thing. Now answer the question, this time without quoting something that happened after your statement.
But besides the invalidity of your answer, it also implied that I gain absolutely nothing from disproving parts of your case on me, which is obviously untrue. That doesn't make sense regardless of whether I'm scum or not. I have clear motivation to find out where your accusations come from and if they really exist.
GriffDay:
Also, why didn't you raise these concerns when you voted me? You asked me questions, I answered them, and then you posted multiple times without anything addressed to me. Eventually I asked you why your vote was still on me, and you pull out multiple reasons that you had never even mentioned before.
I was three and a half hours into building a case on you? I'm so sorry that I didn't have my initial suspicions backed with every possible argument I could make.
I forgive you.
As for why I was posting: I was addressing other things while I worked on my case.
Further question then:
Dave:
What was the longest time period between all my posts?
Why did you ask this question to counter what I assume are Dave's accusations here:
He was just lurking and hadnt posted anything applicable until he got vote, which made him go pseudo aggressive, and start to get, what I perceived as, extremely frustrated. Which to me seemed very scum like, and I felt the vote was well earned.
I asked this question because I was accused of lurking. Clearly Dave looked at the times of my posts to realize that fact, and I was wondering if I really did lurk. (failed attempt at witty sarcasm)
In all actuality, his logic for voting me was bogus. I knew that I wasn't lurking, and forcing Dave to answer that question would of made him say it himself. If that was really his reason for voting me, he'd be able to defend it. If he couldn't defend it, it would mean that he had other reasoning for voting me. Tying the vote, for example.
Gun:
Dave wasn't scum. You knew he wasn't scum, he got lynched anyways. I don't like it. Vote griffinpup.
I'd be very interested in knowing how YOU know that I knew that Dave was scum. I might just be forgetful, but I don't ever remember saying so.
Gun:
More bandwagon.
Actually, the term bandwagon in mafia refers to voting someone that already has multiple votes, so it's not really applicable in this instance. Using this definition, giving you advice obviously isn't bandwagoning. If you want to use a wider definition of bandwagoning, such as "voting someone that already has multiple votes, OR giving advice to someone who already has had advice given to him" you'll have to give a valid explanation on why the latter part of the definition is also scummy. Good luck.
But even your accusation of giving you advice after other people give you advice is partially flawed. The only recent advice given to you by an IC was given by Nerjin in the post before me. I actually wrote the majority of my post BEFORE Nerjin posted his.
Instead of hiding behind the IC just to dodge my accusation.. Instead of telling me how to do my job.. How about you explain to me why you're not scum?
You've messed up the burden of proof. This game is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Though a game the other way around would be very entertaining. Picture wall after wall of texts being posted explaining why their prior wall of text makes them townie.
When I ask you questions, I expect you to answer them.
Wow. Hypocrisy for the win.
Not having time to answer your questions isn't scummy, so stop pretending that it is.
Also, could you quote these questions? I've skimmed the thread and I didn't see these supposed questions.
Ooohhh... That's a very hard question. I prefer to be fairly detailed in my posts where applicable. I am also in multiple conversations/arguments at the same time. I would focus on one of the discussions I was in, while not mentioning the other until I had more time. I would also state that I was a bit out of time and would respond to the other discussion later.
You're explicitly stating that you're dodging questions right here.
Explicitly actually means to say it. In the paragraph quoted, I never once stated that I'm dodging questions, explicitly or implicitly. I stated that I prefer to respond fully to one person as opposed to partial responses to multiple people.
Why? What have you got to hide? What takes you so long to explain if you're so clean and shiny and innocent?
Umm... I think that you don't grasp that this was a answer to an RVS question. I'm not sure how, as you'd have to edit out the actual question to quote the part you did, but you managed it. The question was a purely hypothetical scenario in which I had to get off of the computer soon for some unknown reason. Powder Miner wanted to know what I'd include in this undefined and limited time frame. I told him. From the perspective of this being a hypothetical scenario, I don't really understand how your questions make sense.
Instead of pursuing an easy lynch like scum,
Scum actually have surprisingly little motivation to pursue an "easy lynch." It's much safer and it looks more townie to "change opinions" and attack someone else. There obviously still is motivation to pursue an "easy lynch", of course, but not very much.
why weren't you pushing a new conclusion during D1?
Because I thought Dave was scum and wanted him to be lynched. It's counterproductive to push for an alternate conclusion when the person you think is scum is being lynched. This is kind of a 'duh' moment. What answer were you expecting to get?
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
I literally laughed when I read this.
DAVE:
YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.
This was your last meaningful post before day end.
I'm going to assume you meant last meaningful post towards Dave before day end.
Your next ones were nearly 24 hours later, and only to accuse a player who had just dropped in of lurking. Everything is wrong about this. You had been playing for nearly 72 hours, pressing points, keeping up the pressure the entire time, and yet you had nothing to say, not even so much as a "You STILL haven't answered my questions!" about Dave's situation?! Nerjin, NQT, even Deathsword.. Everyone else was pressing their points, showing him the flaws in his playstyle. Meanwhile, you were sitting back, watching the axe fall. Why?
I think you forgot IG. But regardless, the situation didn't change whatsoever. My earlier case and accusations and questions were still applicable. He still hadn't answered my case in any way, shape, or form. I had already tried prodding him multiple times, and that didn't work. I saw no reason to prod again at day end when not only would he might not have time to answer my prod, but when his answer probably wouldn't be satisfactory if he even acknowledged the prod at all. Would you of preferred that I quote my case again at day end? Or perhaps I should of rephrased it and posted the rephrased version instead.
Pretty much,
Do you find my case(s) against Dave unsatisfactory?Its bandwagon because he was hopping on the "let's give the new guy advice" train,
Which is an inaccurate use of the word bandwagon. Also, "hopping onto that train" isn't inherently scummy either.
and using it to dodge my accusation.
A flat out lie. I STATED that I didn't have time to fully respond to you.
This is BM, and when I get advice I expect to be getting it from other ICs, not fellow players.
This is purely for information's' sake. Do you disagree with the actual advice, or are you just throwing a hissy fit because it came from me?
And yes, part of his job is most certainly answering questions posed by other players.
But that isn't what you asked me to do. You asked me to explain why I'm not scum. And again, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO RESPOND TO YOU.
Also, the fact that you still haven't answered my question in this post makes this statement hilarious.
I understand that not everyone is going to have time all day to answer all the questions posed to them, but being gone for almost a full 24 hours without advance warning? That doesn't happen in Mafia.
That happens all the time. You're not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to what usually does and doesn't happen in mafia.
Not to mention he gave us a warning just recently. I hold that he is lurking scum
Lurking is NOT being gone for almost 24 hours. If I didn't post for almost 24 hours, it means that I posted once a day. This is ACCEPTABLE in the game of mafia. I gave you a warning when I was planning on being gone for 36 hours, not 24. Noted, it did take longer then that, but that was my original estimate.
((I'm honestly having a really hard time finding these questions despite more than a few sweeps.. Can you please quote them for me so I can answer them? :S))
Oh, so you just missed these five posts that contained them in your few sweeps.
Wait... One of these posts are yours. You quoted a question at the same time not answering it and now you claim that in your 'multiple' sweeps, you still couldn't find them?
Well, that wraps up your accusations. Now I have a few questions for you.
And there's plenty of action watching Nerjin and Dave (one-sidedly) slug it out.
Excuse number one for not posting.
I'm making a case right now. I was taking the time to read through the thread and see what sort of effort everyone was putting in, and their stances.
Excuse number two for not posting.
To be honest, I wasn't aware that I was IN until after the second to last time update before the end of D1, and once I had realised this I was panicking while trying to catch up on the thread. I got through most of D1, but I haven't read the middle to end parts, which is why I haven't voted yet. Probably should've done that sooner to prevent looking like a lurker, but I didn't want to make any decisions without having all the facts first.
Excuse number three for not posting, this time for not posting a vote.
Gun: Why all the completely different reasons for not participating in the game? First you're sitting back 'watching the action'. Then you're suddenly building a case and taking your time reading through the thread. Finally, you were panicking while trying to catch up on the thread all while running out of time.
You also completely 'missed' this post of mine and the questions in it.
I'd really like to know what case you were making before day one. Your most recent posts, (the ones after your voting post) were mostly in response to my actions taken AFTER the end of day one. What was your case beforehand?
Chink:
When I was using the word emulate, I meant that my play was a shining example of town play. I was obviously kidding, but that's what I meant.
Author
Topic: BM XLII - Game Over: Mafia Win! (Read 76464 times)