PKMN Chap 2: Day 6(5/18)

[pancakemix]

Vote PMC

Quit beating a dead fucking horse.

I've been silent for however long this has been going because the discussion was fucking boring. I don't want to watch an unstoppable force beat on an immovable object. It's lame, and if 10 pages of discussion aren't an indication, it's not going to get resolved. Everyone else has said "let's drop this", and few even saw it as a scumtell. Why are you choosing to bring up again that which no one wants to discuss.

well you being silent does absolutely nothing for us..instead of being silent why dont you say something to get the game moving ...that really makes me mad ..."oh im not gonna talk because you guys are just going back and forth" well why dont you say something that gets us off the subject cause if anyone had that mentality where would we be? *steps off soap box* sorry just had a mini rant

I just now said something to get this to move on. Before that, it relies on something to actually draw from. I suppose I could have pulled that out at any time, but at this point PMC just seems to be dragging the case for no real reason after everyone has agreed this needs to stop.

Also, don't apologize for saying what you're thinking. Just say it. We're not judging you (until we think you're scum. Then we're very much judging you ).

[kratos644]

I've been gradually preparing this case and I think I'm finally ready to present it.

Why? Why is it remotely important that I keep the pressure on zimmah (every other play in the game seems to be doing a fair job of that) and why is it important to note that I did it?

Thought I had responded here already, perhaps the net ate my answer.

Anyhow, I have grave suspicions of zimmah at this point and if he flips scum you would be next on my list. Your action reduces pressure like I said, so I could easily see this as an attempt to protect a scumbuddy. SG7 is an easy d1 lynch if you decided to push it, and something I believe you would have no issue orchestrating to keep you hypothetical scumbuddy alive. However, none of this has any merit if zimmah is not scum, hence my only desiring the action to be noted, rather then calling you out for being scummy. If I were to die n1 and zimmah were to be scum I would want someone to be easily able to remember that moment.

Shield may be an easy lynch but zimmah is the easiest lynch. It is easy to agree with everyone, it is easy to pick out the flaws in his logic, it is easy to lynch the first guy who says something which doesn't quite add up, it is easy to blend in with the crowd.. it is difficult to change the focus and if you were his partner not only is it difficult but it is also risky.

Here you try to say look at me I'm trying to do something difficult and also if I were his mafia partner something that would be risky making it look like you're trying to pursue someone else but then you have a bunch of posts after this where instead of trying to further your "more difficult case" you continue to pressure zimmah but with your vote not officially on him.

unvote vote zimmah for refusing to answer my question. Why would it is it so hard to justify your actions? For this entire game.

Then you go back and put your vote where you intended for it to be the entire time while trying to make it appear that you were trying to make other cases instead of just taking the easy lynch.

Why were you willing to make a case when you had nothing but you are not willing to make a case when there are so many scummy people to choose from? If you are actually town then it should be easy to pick someone who is being scummy for the way they are pressuring you.

You're right and with how long you've been going on with this case you're appearing quite scummy yourself. At this point I feel you're just dragging this along to try and deter any real cases and as try for a no lynch/easy lynch on zimmah. So in light of this.

Unvote: Vote PMC

[Some7hingCLEVER]

I've been gradually preparing this case and I think I'm finally ready to present it.

Why? Why is it remotely important that I keep the pressure on zimmah (every other play in the game seems to be doing a fair job of that) and why is it important to note that I did it?

Thought I had responded here already, perhaps the net ate my answer.

Anyhow, I have grave suspicions of zimmah at this point and if he flips scum you would be next on my list. Your action reduces pressure like I said, so I could easily see this as an attempt to protect a scumbuddy. SG7 is an easy d1 lynch if you decided to push it, and something I believe you would have no issue orchestrating to keep you hypothetical scumbuddy alive. However, none of this has any merit if zimmah is not scum, hence my only desiring the action to be noted, rather then calling you out for being scummy. If I were to die n1 and zimmah were to be scum I would want someone to be easily able to remember that moment.

Shield may be an easy lynch but zimmah is the easiest lynch. It is easy to agree with everyone, it is easy to pick out the flaws in his logic, it is easy to lynch the first guy who says something which doesn't quite add up, it is easy to blend in with the crowd.. it is difficult to change the focus and if you were his partner not only is it difficult but it is also risky.

Here you try to say look at me I'm trying to do something difficult and also if I were his mafia partner something that would be risky making it look like you're trying to pursue someone else but then you have a bunch of posts after this where instead of trying to further your "more difficult case" you continue to pressure zimmah but with your vote not officially on him.

unvote vote zimmah for refusing to answer my question. Why would it is it so hard to justify your actions? For this entire game.

Then you go back and put your vote where you intended for it to be the entire time while trying to make it appear that you were trying to make other cases instead of just taking the easy lynch.

Why were you willing to make a case when you had nothing but you are not willing to make a case when there are so many scummy people to choose from? If you are actually town then it should be easy to pick someone who is being scummy for the way they are pressuring you.

You're right and with how long you've been going on with this case you're appearing quite scummy yourself. At this point I feel you're just dragging this along to try and deter any real cases and as try for a no lynch/easy lynch on zimmah. So in light of this.

Unvote: Vote PMC

i have a new found respect for you man lol finally someone does something to move the game along
unvote vote pmc for one this case is well thought out and is the best case today
two..because it has merit and we need some kind of pressure on him
three...because someone finally made another case

[pmchugh]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia. The one exception to this is clever, who seems to be rather confused on his views of this whole thing. The timing of his change from agreeing with me to disagreement is of particular interest, i.e. at the precise moment when people started to cast suspicion on me.

I've been gradually preparing this case and I think I'm finally ready to present it.

Why? Why is it remotely important that I keep the pressure on zimmah (every other play in the game seems to be doing a fair job of that) and why is it important to note that I did it?

Thought I had responded here already, perhaps the net ate my answer.

Anyhow, I have grave suspicions of zimmah at this point and if he flips scum you would be next on my list. Your action reduces pressure like I said, so I could easily see this as an attempt to protect a scumbuddy. SG7 is an easy d1 lynch if you decided to push it, and something I believe you would have no issue orchestrating to keep you hypothetical scumbuddy alive. However, none of this has any merit if zimmah is not scum, hence my only desiring the action to be noted, rather then calling you out for being scummy. If I were to die n1 and zimmah were to be scum I would want someone to be easily able to remember that moment.

Shield may be an easy lynch but zimmah is the easiest lynch. It is easy to agree with everyone, it is easy to pick out the flaws in his logic, it is easy to lynch the first guy who says something which doesn't quite add up, it is easy to blend in with the crowd.. it is difficult to change the focus and if you were his partner not only is it difficult but it is also risky.

Here you try to say look at me I'm trying to do something difficult and also if I were his mafia partner something that would be risky making it look like you're trying to pursue someone else but then you have a bunch of posts after this where instead of trying to further your "more difficult case" you continue to pressure zimmah but with your vote not officially on him.

unvote vote zimmah for refusing to answer my question. Why would it is it so hard to justify your actions? For this entire game.

Then you go back and put your vote where you intended for it to be the entire time while trying to make it appear that you were trying to make other cases instead of just taking the easy lynch.

Why were you willing to make a case when you had nothing but you are not willing to make a case when there are so many scummy people to choose from? If you are actually town then it should be easy to pick someone who is being scummy for the way they are pressuring you.

You're right and with how long you've been going on with this case you're appearing quite scummy yourself. At this point I feel you're just dragging this along to try and deter any real cases and as try for a no lynch/easy lynch on zimmah. So in light of this.

Unvote: Vote PMC

Your argument finds its basis in me "doing the easy thing" while attempting to appear like I am properly scumhunting. The problem with your argument is that for almost this entire thread I have been against the popular opinion. I was against the Zimmah lynch when people were on it and as interest fell on Zimmah I took over. This is precisely the opposite of the point I made about trying to do the easy thing. Now you could argue that by going against the grain I was pushing for a NL but to me that honestly seems like a really bad scum tactic especially on day 1 in a game that I would presume has multiple factions and where I myself have a very low chance of being lynched.

The real purpose of going against main stream opinion is that you see peoples reactions much more clearly.

[strike wolf]

Sorry limited access over the weekend. Will be caught up and reread by tomorrow.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia. The one exception to this is clever, who seems to be rather confused on his views of this whole thing. The timing of his change from agreeing with me to disagreement is of particular interest, i.e. at the precise moment when people started to cast suspicion on me.

I've been gradually preparing this case and I think I'm finally ready to present it.

Why? Why is it remotely important that I keep the pressure on zimmah (every other play in the game seems to be doing a fair job of that) and why is it important to note that I did it?

Thought I had responded here already, perhaps the net ate my answer.

Anyhow, I have grave suspicions of zimmah at this point and if he flips scum you would be next on my list. Your action reduces pressure like I said, so I could easily see this as an attempt to protect a scumbuddy. SG7 is an easy d1 lynch if you decided to push it, and something I believe you would have no issue orchestrating to keep you hypothetical scumbuddy alive. However, none of this has any merit if zimmah is not scum, hence my only desiring the action to be noted, rather then calling you out for being scummy. If I were to die n1 and zimmah were to be scum I would want someone to be easily able to remember that moment.

Shield may be an easy lynch but zimmah is the easiest lynch. It is easy to agree with everyone, it is easy to pick out the flaws in his logic, it is easy to lynch the first guy who says something which doesn't quite add up, it is easy to blend in with the crowd.. it is difficult to change the focus and if you were his partner not only is it difficult but it is also risky.

Here you try to say look at me I'm trying to do something difficult and also if I were his mafia partner something that would be risky making it look like you're trying to pursue someone else but then you have a bunch of posts after this where instead of trying to further your "more difficult case" you continue to pressure zimmah but with your vote not officially on him.

unvote vote zimmah for refusing to answer my question. Why would it is it so hard to justify your actions? For this entire game.

Then you go back and put your vote where you intended for it to be the entire time while trying to make it appear that you were trying to make other cases instead of just taking the easy lynch.

Why were you willing to make a case when you had nothing but you are not willing to make a case when there are so many scummy people to choose from? If you are actually town then it should be easy to pick someone who is being scummy for the way they are pressuring you.

You're right and with how long you've been going on with this case you're appearing quite scummy yourself. At this point I feel you're just dragging this along to try and deter any real cases and as try for a no lynch/easy lynch on zimmah. So in light of this.

Unvote: Vote PMC

Your argument finds its basis in me "doing the easy thing" while attempting to appear like I am properly scumhunting. The problem with your argument is that for almost this entire thread I have been against the popular opinion. I was against the Zimmah lynch when people were on it and as interest fell on Zimmah I took over. This is precisely the opposite of the point I made about trying to do the easy thing. Now you could argue that by going against the grain I was pushing for a NL but to me that honestly seems like a really bad scum tactic especially on day 1 in a game that I would presume has multiple factions and where I myself have a very low chance of being lynched.

The real purpose of going against main stream opinion is that you see peoples reactions much more clearly.

well sorry i switched my views to easy. but i CLEARLY stated that i didnt wanna do the zimmah case anymore. so when a new case presents itself i went along and i was only agreeing and adding pressure which really isnt much. i think this day needs to go a little faster and were hitting a wall so what better way to move it along then by adding pressure. so FOS if you want i was just doing what half the people in this game said they were gonna do.

[kratos644]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia. The one exception to this is clever, who seems to be rather confused on his views of this whole thing. The timing of his change from agreeing with me to disagreement is of particular interest, i.e. at the precise moment when people started to cast suspicion on me.

I've been gradually preparing this case and I think I'm finally ready to present it.

Why? Why is it remotely important that I keep the pressure on zimmah (every other play in the game seems to be doing a fair job of that) and why is it important to note that I did it?

Thought I had responded here already, perhaps the net ate my answer.

Anyhow, I have grave suspicions of zimmah at this point and if he flips scum you would be next on my list. Your action reduces pressure like I said, so I could easily see this as an attempt to protect a scumbuddy. SG7 is an easy d1 lynch if you decided to push it, and something I believe you would have no issue orchestrating to keep you hypothetical scumbuddy alive. However, none of this has any merit if zimmah is not scum, hence my only desiring the action to be noted, rather then calling you out for being scummy. If I were to die n1 and zimmah were to be scum I would want someone to be easily able to remember that moment.

Shield may be an easy lynch but zimmah is the easiest lynch. It is easy to agree with everyone, it is easy to pick out the flaws in his logic, it is easy to lynch the first guy who says something which doesn't quite add up, it is easy to blend in with the crowd.. it is difficult to change the focus and if you were his partner not only is it difficult but it is also risky.

Here you try to say look at me I'm trying to do something difficult and also if I were his mafia partner something that would be risky making it look like you're trying to pursue someone else but then you have a bunch of posts after this where instead of trying to further your "more difficult case" you continue to pressure zimmah but with your vote not officially on him.

unvote vote zimmah for refusing to answer my question. Why would it is it so hard to justify your actions? For this entire game.

Then you go back and put your vote where you intended for it to be the entire time while trying to make it appear that you were trying to make other cases instead of just taking the easy lynch.

Why were you willing to make a case when you had nothing but you are not willing to make a case when there are so many scummy people to choose from? If you are actually town then it should be easy to pick someone who is being scummy for the way they are pressuring you.

You're right and with how long you've been going on with this case you're appearing quite scummy yourself. At this point I feel you're just dragging this along to try and deter any real cases and as try for a no lynch/easy lynch on zimmah. So in light of this.

Unvote: Vote PMC

Your argument finds its basis in me "doing the easy thing" while attempting to appear like I am properly scumhunting. The problem with your argument is that for almost this entire thread I have been against the popular opinion. I was against the Zimmah lynch when people were on it and as interest fell on Zimmah I took over. This is precisely the opposite of the point I made about trying to do the easy thing. Now you could argue that by going against the grain I was pushing for a NL but to me that honestly seems like a really bad scum tactic especially on day 1 in a game that I would presume has multiple factions and where I myself have a very low chance of being lynched.

The real purpose of going against main stream opinion is that you see peoples reactions much more clearly.

Unfortunately saying that seems like a really bad scum tactic is WIFOM for obvious reasons.

As for the underlined section, that's kind of the point I was making. You're saying that you're doing the opposite of easy thing and try to make it appear like you're looking for real cases but for the last 7 or 8 pages you haven't really done much but poke around in Zimmah's direction while it's pretty much determined that if we want a day 1 lynch instead of a no lynch there are likely enough people willing to just lynch him so if you kept moving in that direction it would eventually happen.

I will agree with you though that clever is hopping around on his thoughts a bunch but for now this is the case I wish to pursue. I will acknowledge that it's only day 1 so the validity of this case is of course questionable but for now it seems better than the one on Zimmah.

[freezie]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia.

I'll challenge you to back these words:

Unvote

Vote: PMC

Let's be honest, you're not helping the town by telling everyone who doesn't want to hear about it that you don't like what Zimmah has been saying. He has used poor logic, yes, but everyone has agreed that he doesn't appear scummy. You're trying to make a case that nobody wants to lynch for, and keep on doing it because Zimmah '' hasn't answered your question'' when in fact, from my view, he has. More than once.

[edocsil]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia.

I'll challenge you to back these words:

Unvote

Vote: PMC

Let's be honest, you're not helping the town by telling everyone who doesn't want to hear about it that you don't like what Zimmah has been saying. He has used poor logic, yes, but everyone has agreed that he doesn't appear scummy. You're trying to make a case that nobody wants to lynch for, and keep on doing it because Zimmah '' hasn't answered your question'' when in fact, from my view, he has. More than once.

yup.

[jonty125]

PMC case is much better than the zimmah case [color]unvote vote pmc[/color]

[jonty125]

PMC case is much better than the zimmah case unvote vote pmc

EBWOP

[kratos644]

With Jonty's vote I believe that puts PMC at L-4

[pmchugh]

well sorry i switched my views to easy. but i CLEARLY stated that i didnt wanna do the zimmah case anymore. so when a new case presents itself i went along and i was only agreeing and adding pressure which really isnt much. i think this day needs to go a little faster and were hitting a wall so what better way to move it along then by adding pressure. so FOS if you want i was just doing what half the people in this game said they were gonna do.

Thats not the point, all the votes that are going on me are purely because I was pressuring zimmah and so were you. So on what grounds are you voting me other than for the sake of voting me? If you say "I'm voting you to put pressure on you but not for any other reason" then how am I supposed to defend myself.

Unfortunately saying that seems like a really bad scum tactic is WIFOM for obvious reasons.

WIFOM or not you can still ask yourself, is it very likely that member of the mafia would push for a no lynch? Or better yet is it very likely that member of the mafia will push for no lynch on the grounds it would be a bad tactic for mafia? I think at whatever level you are of the WIFOM you are at it is a very unlikely tactic to be played.

As for the underlined section, that's kind of the point I was making. You're saying that you're doing the opposite of easy thing and try to make it appear like you're looking for real cases but for the last 7 or 8 pages you haven't really done much but poke around in Zimmah's direction while it's pretty much determined that if we want a day 1 lynch instead of a no lynch there are likely enough people willing to just lynch him so if you kept moving in that direction it would eventually happen.

Are you serious? What is easy about repeatedly pushing on someone when everyone else stops. Influential players like edoc and nag were screaming for me to stop, how is it in any way easy to keep going? This is completely backwards. I could have created a case on probably half the players in this game if I wanted to that would be far more likely to be lynched than zimmah ever was. The only reason I haven't is because there is plenty time left for more slips.

(i'll reply to other in separate post)

[pmchugh]

Lets be honest, anyone casting suspicion on me is doing so purely because they don't like what I am saying.. not because they actually think I am mafia.

I'll challenge you to back these words:

Unvote

Vote: PMC

Let's be honest, you're not helping the town by telling everyone who doesn't want to hear about it that you don't like what Zimmah has been saying. He has used poor logic, yes, but everyone has agreed that he doesn't appear scummy. You're trying to make a case that nobody wants to lynch for, and keep on doing it because Zimmah '' hasn't answered your question'' when in fact, from my view, he has. More than once.

You know I can't back that up with solid evidence but it is still pretty clear there was a growing aggression against me and others still on the zimmah case. I could have reasonably bet that I would be voted sooner or later by those criticizing the case.

Now please quote where Zimmah states his opinion on whether you are mafia or not, on whether he believes it was a joke. Quote it from "several" different posts please.

PMC case is much better than the zimmah case [color]unvote vote pmc[/color]

Why is the zimmah case the comparison point? Are we the only two players worth a case? What is it about this case that makes it "better" than anything else?

[kratos644]

WIFOM or not you can still ask yourself, is it very likely that member of the mafia would push for a no lynch? Or better yet is it very likely that member of the mafia will push for no lynch on the grounds it would be a bad tactic for mafia? I think at whatever level you are of the WIFOM you are at it is a very unlikely tactic to be played.

Likely scum tactic? No it's not I'll give you that much. Does that mean it's not one that could be used though? Certainly not. Easily something you could try to hide behind like you're doing by saying "Is this really something mafia would do?" Remember you did say this:

I would go further and say, its good when a case is brought against you this early on day 1. If I don't get accused of being suspicious within 15 pages of day 1 I start wondering what is wrong. I guess I know how to defend myself and attack other people because I envy your position right now. There are plenty of people who look rather suspicious in the way they have slowly egged this case on without having the guts to throw a vote in and the chances are you wont get lynched over something so small unless a deadline comes around.

So now you get to be in that position you were envious of.
By the way you've been doing exactly this. You've been continually poking at zimmah keeping the discussion focused on that but your vote had remained off him until recently.

As for the underlined section, that's kind of the point I was making. You're saying that you're doing the opposite of easy thing and try to make it appear like you're looking for real cases but for the last 7 or 8 pages you haven't really done much but poke around in Zimmah's direction while it's pretty much determined that if we want a day 1 lynch instead of a no lynch there are likely enough people willing to just lynch him so if you kept moving in that direction it would eventually happen.

Are you serious? What is easy about repeatedly pushing on someone when everyone else stops. Influential players like edoc and nag were screaming for me to stop, how is it in any way easy to keep going? This is completely backwards. I could have created a case on probably half the players in this game if I wanted to that would be far more likely to be lynched than zimmah ever was. The only reason I haven't is because there is plenty time left for more slips.

Really it's backwards? You would stop pushing a case just because others tell you to stop? In my opinion that would make you look even more scummy because it would imply that you didn't truly believe in your case and when it gets a little resistance you flee which you obviously didn't know and it could've been for the reason I said or just because you truly wanted to try to get more out of it. Either way your argument of "Others didn't like it so it would've been easier to stop" doesn't really hold any ground in my opinion.

[shieldgenerator7]

My vote previously was on jonty for beating the dead horse but it now goes to VOTE PMC for being the latest offender of this.

Also, I have a few things to say about your defense. Most of which kratos has already covered, but I want to repeat anyways.

You say that you were "going against the grain" to show you weren't just taking the easy path. Well, if you always try to go against everyone else, solely for the purpose of going against everyone else, what purpose does it serve? None, except if you're mafia trying to get a NL. You have to have a reason each time you go against the grain otherwise it's just as scummy as taking the easy way each time.

About voting you for not liking what you say rather than voting you for thinking you're mafia. If I don't like what you say because it sounds scummy, I think you're scummy, thus I think you're Mafia.

And concerning Clever, I think he's just a n00b doing n00b things hopping his vote around like that (you still got to be careful dude). I haven't seen anything really scummy from him just yet (that I can remember).

tl;dr: I vote PMC for recent scummy behaviour

-SG7 ( )

[DoomYoshi]

My vote previously was on jonty for beating the dead horse but it now goes to VOTE PMC for being the latest offender of this.

Also, I have a few things to say about your defense. Most of which kratos has already covered, but I want to repeat anyways.

You say that you were "going against the grain" to show you weren't just taking the easy path. Well, if you always try to go against everyone else, solely for the purpose of going against everyone else, what purpose does it serve? None, except if you're mafia trying to get a NL. You have to have a reason each time you go against the grain otherwise it's just as scummy as taking the easy way each time.

About voting you for not liking what you say rather than voting you for thinking you're mafia. If I don't like what you say because it sounds scummy, I think you're scummy, thus I think you're Mafia.

And concerning Clever, I think he's just a n00b doing n00b things hopping his vote around like that (you still got to be careful dude). I haven't seen anything really scummy from him just yet (that I can remember).

tl;dr: I vote PMC for recent scummy behaviour

-SG7 ( )

OFFICIAL WARNING

Don't edit your posts.

[DoomYoshi]

Goddamit shield, change your signature.

[zimmah]

Goddamit shield, change your signature.

trollface.jpg

[shieldgenerator7]

Goddamit shield, change your signature.

trollface.jpg

Late April Fool's joke

I got one with it, I'm satisfied. Changing it back now



lshicastr, I can hardly stop cracking up...

-SG7 ( )

[pmchugh]

I would go further and say, its good when a case is brought against you this early on day 1. If I don't get accused of being suspicious within 15 pages of day 1 I start wondering what is wrong. I guess I know how to defend myself and attack other people because I envy your position right now. There are plenty of people who look rather suspicious in the way they have slowly egged this case on without having the guts to throw a vote in and the chances are you wont get lynched over something so small unless a deadline comes around.

So now you get to be in that position you were envious of.
By the way you've been doing exactly this. You've been continually poking at zimmah keeping the discussion focused on that but your vote had remained off him until recently.

I never wanted to vote Zimmah and if I am honest I have no real read on him and this is precisely why I voted him. He never gave anything away, all that pressure and he never really said anything except one little out burst of annoyance. Here is why your case fails; at no point when zimmah was likely to get lynched was I making it more likely that he would get lynched. If anything I was providing him an opportunity to explain what he had done. I asked questions but most of them were out of annoyance at the lack of points being made against him, rather like jonty, clever and edoc are doing right now there were a lot of people applying pressure in a way which could not be responded to, if you are going to pressure someone you have to give them something to reply to other than blind votes.

Really it's backwards? You would stop pushing a case just because others tell you to stop? In my opinion that would make you look even more scummy because it would imply that you didn't truly believe in your case and when it gets a little resistance you flee which you obviously didn't know and it could've been for the reason I said or just because you truly wanted to try to get more out of it. Either way your argument of "Others didn't like it so it would've been easier to stop" doesn't really hold any ground in my opinion.

I would arouse no such suspicion as I was never really for the zimmah case in the first place.

Fastposted by shield.

You say that you were "going against the grain" to show you weren't just taking the easy path. Well, if you always try to go against everyone else, solely for the purpose of going against everyone else, what purpose does it serve? None, except if you're mafia trying to get a NL. You have to have a reason each time you go against the grain otherwise it's just as scummy as taking the easy way each time.

Firstly let me say that there are two contradictory arguments being placed against me here. One is that I was pushing for a zimmah lynch and the other is that I am going against the grain and this is somehow scummy. I can't possibly be doing both as one involves protecting zimmah. And I had decidedly good reason for going against the grain. I didn't want people going on a crusade against Zimmah but at the same time I wanted explanations, I think that this can be seen in all my posts in which I ask specific questions of zimmah while also attempting to alleviate pressure when it existed.

Perhaps I attempted to do too many things at once and I would have been better placed to present an alternative case but like I say, people were doing such a bad job of providing an argument which could be responded to that I felt the need to ask proper questions.

About voting you for not liking what you say rather than voting you for thinking you're mafia. If I don't like what you say because it sounds scummy, I think you're scummy, thus I think you're Mafia.

I removed most of your posts as its waffling along these lines, you have an uncanny ability to say so little in so many words Also people who vote after this statement are not necessarily referred to by the statement as I don't own a crystal ball

[kratos644]

I never wanted to vote Zimmah and if I am honest I have no real read on him and this is precisely why I voted him. He never gave anything away, all that pressure and he never really said anything except one little out burst of annoyance. Here is why your case fails; at no point when zimmah was likely to get lynched was I making it more likely that he would get lynched. If anything I was providing him an opportunity to explain what he had done. I asked questions but most of them were out of annoyance at the lack of points being made against him, rather like jonty, clever and edoc are doing right now there were a lot of people applying pressure in a way which could not be responded to, if you are going to pressure someone you have to give them something to reply to other than blind votes.

Let's get things straight here. Maybe I have been confusing in the way I've been saying things but my case on you is not because "you were making it more likely for zimmah to get lynched," but because you were in a sense continuing to steer the conversation in that direction which was halting progress down other avenues. Yes I know that people were free to make other cases, you weren't directly stopping them from doing so. I do feel that you were sort of indirectly distracting them from making other cases though which if none came up we would eventually end with either a no lynch or probably just lynching zimmah. Now I will admit I don't have a good read on you which is another part of why I'm currently making this case against you.

[zimmah]

I would go further and say, its good when a case is brought against you this early on day 1. If I don't get accused of being suspicious within 15 pages of day 1 I start wondering what is wrong. I guess I know how to defend myself and attack other people because I envy your position right now. There are plenty of people who look rather suspicious in the way they have slowly egged this case on without having the guts to throw a vote in and the chances are you wont get lynched over something so small unless a deadline comes around.

So now you get to be in that position you were envious of.
By the way you've been doing exactly this. You've been continually poking at zimmah keeping the discussion focused on that but your vote had remained off him until recently.

I never wanted to vote Zimmah and if I am honest I have no real read on him and this is precisely why I voted him. He never gave anything away, all that pressure and he never really said anything except one little out burst of annoyance. Here is why your case fails; at no point when zimmah was likely to get lynched was I making it more likely that he would get lynched. If anything I was providing him an opportunity to explain what he had done. I asked questions but most of them were out of annoyance at the lack of points being made against him, rather like jonty, clever and edoc are doing right now there were a lot of people applying pressure in a way which could not be responded to, if you are going to pressure someone you have to give them something to reply to other than blind votes.

Really it's backwards? You would stop pushing a case just because others tell you to stop? In my opinion that would make you look even more scummy because it would imply that you didn't truly believe in your case and when it gets a little resistance you flee which you obviously didn't know and it could've been for the reason I said or just because you truly wanted to try to get more out of it. Either way your argument of "Others didn't like it so it would've been easier to stop" doesn't really hold any ground in my opinion.

I would arouse no such suspicion as I was never really for the zimmah case in the first place.

Fastposted by shield.

You say that you were "going against the grain" to show you weren't just taking the easy path. Well, if you always try to go against everyone else, solely for the purpose of going against everyone else, what purpose does it serve? None, except if you're mafia trying to get a NL. You have to have a reason each time you go against the grain otherwise it's just as scummy as taking the easy way each time.

Firstly let me say that there are two contradictory arguments being placed against me here. One is that I was pushing for a zimmah lynch and the other is that I am going against the grain and this is somehow scummy. I can't possibly be doing both as one involves protecting zimmah. And I had decidedly good reason for going against the grain. I didn't want people going on a crusade against Zimmah but at the same time I wanted explanations, I think that this can be seen in all my posts in which I ask specific questions of zimmah while also attempting to alleviate pressure when it existed.

Perhaps I attempted to do too many things at once and I would have been better placed to present an alternative case but like I say, people were doing such a bad job of providing an argument which could be responded to that I felt the need to ask proper questions.

About voting you for not liking what you say rather than voting you for thinking you're mafia. If I don't like what you say because it sounds scummy, I think you're scummy, thus I think you're Mafia.

I removed most of your posts as its waffling along these lines, you have an uncanny ability to say so little in so many words Also people who vote after this statement are not necessarily referred to by the statement as I don't own a crystal ball

if i had anything to share i would.

turns out, i have nothing worth sharing atm.

[pmchugh]

I never wanted to vote Zimmah and if I am honest I have no real read on him and this is precisely why I voted him. He never gave anything away, all that pressure and he never really said anything except one little out burst of annoyance. Here is why your case fails; at no point when zimmah was likely to get lynched was I making it more likely that he would get lynched. If anything I was providing him an opportunity to explain what he had done. I asked questions but most of them were out of annoyance at the lack of points being made against him, rather like jonty, clever and edoc are doing right now there were a lot of people applying pressure in a way which could not be responded to, if you are going to pressure someone you have to give them something to reply to other than blind votes.

Let's get things straight here. Maybe I have been confusing in the way I've been saying things but my case on you is not because "you were making it more likely for zimmah to get lynched," but because you were in a sense continuing to steer the conversation in that direction which was halting progress down other avenues. Yes I know that people were free to make other cases, you weren't directly stopping them from doing so. I do feel that you were sort of indirectly distracting them from making other cases though which if none came up we would eventually end with either a no lynch or probably just lynching zimmah. Now I will admit I don't have a good read on you which is another part of why I'm currently making this case against you.

Oh OK I completely misunderstood then. IMO most people don't really post usefully on day 1 anyway and the chances are that the game would have just drifted towards the bottom of the forum rather than have moved forwards. The only differentiation you appear to make between me and others was that I was actually posting and when I was posting I was talking about points relative towards the game. Without picking up on a new case, which very few players in the entire game were doing, then I could not make any contributions.

What makes contributing, albeit in a small manner, any worse than not posting or posting without content? All three methods achieve the "desired" goal of making the game stagnant. I feel I was at least prompting responses from zimmah and reactions from others.

I would go further and say, its good when a case is brought against you this early on day 1. If I don't get accused of being suspicious within 15 pages of day 1 I start wondering what is wrong. I guess I know how to defend myself and attack other people because I envy your position right now. There are plenty of people who look rather suspicious in the way they have slowly egged this case on without having the guts to throw a vote in and the chances are you wont get lynched over something so small unless a deadline comes around.

So now you get to be in that position you were envious of.
By the way you've been doing exactly this. You've been continually poking at zimmah keeping the discussion focused on that but your vote had remained off him until recently.

I never wanted to vote Zimmah and if I am honest I have no real read on him and this is precisely why I voted him. He never gave anything away, all that pressure and he never really said anything except one little out burst of annoyance. Here is why your case fails; at no point when zimmah was likely to get lynched was I making it more likely that he would get lynched. If anything I was providing him an opportunity to explain what he had done. I asked questions but most of them were out of annoyance at the lack of points being made against him, rather like jonty, clever and edoc are doing right now there were a lot of people applying pressure in a way which could not be responded to, if you are going to pressure someone you have to give them something to reply to other than blind votes.

Really it's backwards? You would stop pushing a case just because others tell you to stop? In my opinion that would make you look even more scummy because it would imply that you didn't truly believe in your case and when it gets a little resistance you flee which you obviously didn't know and it could've been for the reason I said or just because you truly wanted to try to get more out of it. Either way your argument of "Others didn't like it so it would've been easier to stop" doesn't really hold any ground in my opinion.

I would arouse no such suspicion as I was never really for the zimmah case in the first place.

Fastposted by shield.

You say that you were "going against the grain" to show you weren't just taking the easy path. Well, if you always try to go against everyone else, solely for the purpose of going against everyone else, what purpose does it serve? None, except if you're mafia trying to get a NL. You have to have a reason each time you go against the grain otherwise it's just as scummy as taking the easy way each time.

Firstly let me say that there are two contradictory arguments being placed against me here. One is that I was pushing for a zimmah lynch and the other is that I am going against the grain and this is somehow scummy. I can't possibly be doing both as one involves protecting zimmah. And I had decidedly good reason for going against the grain. I didn't want people going on a crusade against Zimmah but at the same time I wanted explanations, I think that this can be seen in all my posts in which I ask specific questions of zimmah while also attempting to alleviate pressure when it existed.

Perhaps I attempted to do too many things at once and I would have been better placed to present an alternative case but like I say, people were doing such a bad job of providing an argument which could be responded to that I felt the need to ask proper questions.

About voting you for not liking what you say rather than voting you for thinking you're mafia. If I don't like what you say because it sounds scummy, I think you're scummy, thus I think you're Mafia.

I removed most of your posts as its waffling along these lines, you have an uncanny ability to say so little in so many words Also people who vote after this statement are not necessarily referred to by the statement as I don't own a crystal ball

if i had anything to share i would.

turns out, i have nothing worth sharing atm.

Fastposted by zimmah. In mafia terms I dislike the "agnostic" attitude. I take it then that your answer to all these questions is "I don't know". This can be quite an easy way for mafia to avoid associating and it really achieves nothing as a townie. I would prefer someone to come out guns blazing and be wrong than to fence sit. This of course is confusing my brain because you appeared to initially go for freezie in order to gauge reactions but you have never stated this and it makes me wonder whether you were doing that at all, or if you even realized what you were doing. I don't know what to take from this really because I don't see the purpose in your vote if it were not to reaction test. I'll unvote for now as I have quite clearly stated I don't have a mafia read on you rather a null read.

[zimmah]

like has been said by me and others, i have answered all the questions as good as i could. i'm not hiding anything but you're just being stubborn.

i know i probably overdid it a bit on the freezie case which raised suspicion a little but i explained my reasons as well.