Balance Not Included Mafia 3/12 End Game: Balance. Town Wins

[mtamburini]

im so deep in silver_samus pocket after that post holy crap

Storrzerg plz.

I know you like your ego being stroked and all but stay focused on the goal. Lynch them scumbags. I'll never be pocketed ever and to those who wish to try you're wasting your time. The lynch today is my vote.

vote virus

[Metsfanmax]

so any time mets you want to continue a discussion or start something new that would be great.

I might consider starting a case on any of the number of you who think that this case is worth pursuing, just not sure who to select. pcm has been particularly argumentative and while I think his arguments are terrible and he doesn't understand this situation, that doesn't make him scum. I do think you're being misdirecting enough to consider. Your feigned dislike for how we feel about your crappy case is putting on a good town show even though the intentions aren't very good because this is indeed a crappy case.

This is not a crappy case. Just because it was (very) early on D1 doesn't make up for the fact that he was drawing attention to a possible power role. Virus confirmed that, at the time of his post, he hadn't read the rules/OP yet.
When I first started playing mafia, one of the first things I was told is to NEVER EVER EVER try to fish after someone's role, double so if you believe it to be a power role. When you are town, ofcourse.
It doesn't matter if he is experienced or new, early or late on D1. It doesn't matter that it is a poor play on his part being town or mafia, the fact of the matter is that Virus made a mistake with his post. This is more then enough to warrant a case, and even a wagon, on Virus. Especially on D1.

Oh OK. Well, since virus made a "mistake," let's just lynch him right? Who cares if he's town or mafia? The goal of this game is to lynch whoever we don't like, not to actually win. This is the scummiest thing I've seen yet today.

Now you have already spent half the week arguing about this case being too weak, without actually helping to build another case. Furthermore, with your last post you are effectively taking the pace out D1.

Sometimes a random D1 lynch is better than participating in a really bad case. This is one of those times for me.

I'm glad to read that you 'might consider' starting a new case. Excellent.

There's not much to do here. The record is out there for everyone to see. Not clear why the pressure is on me in particular to provide a new case just because I pointed out that the old one is bad. This is some of the worst mafia logic I've yet seen in my time here. Shooting the messenger all the way.

One of the great things about Storr's play is that he makes people react to certain situations, like you are reacting to his case on Virus. Even if that case doesn't hold up, it made you ultra defensive for little reason. This makes me feel even better to have my vote on you.

Yes, Storr got the reaction he wanted. That's why I was most suspicious of him until this latest post. If he's scum, it's a brilliant move to deflect attention to someone else who made a "mistake," and if virus flips town then he can just fall back on my defense.

[Metsfanmax]

By the way: if your vote is on me, that means you think I'm mafia for defending virus. Which means that you also think virus is mafia. So why is your vote on me and not on virus?

[mtamburini]

I think virus is mafia but not you just yet. I still think you are town for today anyways. Don't you agree that mafia make mistakes too?

What is your opinion on liars? He's lied at least once for sure this far.

[virus90]

ok i have layed low on the case on me because that works sometimes but with the deadline incoming and the dust not settling i think its time to get in,
first of all unvote my joke vote.

then on the "case"on me. i do get how you could interpret it as role fishing / scummy or whatever but there was no meaning to it from my side, it was a joke. lets quote my 3 posts i made before the game really started at all.

confirm, and you already got my vote streaker or siver samus very suspicious all of this

Confirm that I have received and understand my role pm.

that makes me think your no VT, else it wouldnt have been so hard to understand FOS

(okay few months no mafia for me im enthousiastic, im sorry)

LETS GET THEM!
been so long, i am looking forward to the game

nice to see 2 new faces: welcome !

and i vote metsfanmax, for being so quick to vote on mtam

i first saying to vote samus, while we are still confirming with a joke, then FOS-ing spiesr with a joke, and then voting metsfanmax with a joke, winking faces and all of it.
ok i could have just said confirm and wait for the opening scene, but as i typed in 2 of the 3 of my posts i was "looking forward to the game" and "im enthousiastic".
i think all of that is clear to see in the way the posts are made, winking faces etc. nothing about it was meant serious. i dont know what more to say about it then this really.
when asked i could have said i had read the rules and that was part of the joke, but at that point i hadnt and i thought why would i lie about it, its a joke, so i just told you.
was it serious? No not at all, was it smart? NO, thats proven, can it be interpreted as scummy: Yes if you want too.

[mtamburini]

Why are you ignoring the fact you lied about storr and I

[Silver_Samus]

so any time mets you want to continue a discussion or start something new that would be great.

I might consider starting a case on any of the number of you who think that this case is worth pursuing, just not sure who to select. pcm has been particularly argumentative and while I think his arguments are terrible and he doesn't understand this situation, that doesn't make him scum. I do think you're being misdirecting enough to consider. Your feigned dislike for how we feel about your crappy case is putting on a good town show even though the intentions aren't very good because this is indeed a crappy case.

This is not a crappy case. Just because it was (very) early on D1 doesn't make up for the fact that he was drawing attention to a possible power role. Virus confirmed that, at the time of his post, he hadn't read the rules/OP yet.
When I first started playing mafia, one of the first things I was told is to NEVER EVER EVER try to fish after someone's role, double so if you believe it to be a power role. When you are town, ofcourse.
It doesn't matter if he is experienced or new, early or late on D1. It doesn't matter that it is a poor play on his part being town or mafia, the fact of the matter is that Virus made a mistake with his post. This is more then enough to warrant a case, and even a wagon, on Virus. Especially on D1.

Oh OK. Well, since virus made a "mistake," let's just lynch him right? Who cares if he's town or mafia? The goal of this game is to lynch whoever we don't like, not to actually win. This is the scummiest thing I've seen yet today.

I don't know what thread you have been reading, but I have not been pushing the case on virus. I'm really tempted to vote him, but I have a better lead. I actually care if he is mafia or town, yes.

Now you have already spent half the week arguing about this case being too weak, without actually helping to build another case. Furthermore, with your last post you are effectively taking the pace out D1.

Sometimes a random D1 lynch is better than participating in a really bad case. This is one of those times for me.

Random case, or bad case. Right now both are the same thing. Lynching either virus, you, or anyone else is guesswork at this stage. I'm putting my money on what I read. You, in this case.

I'm glad to read that you 'might consider' starting a new case. Excellent.

There's not much to do here. The record is out there for everyone to see. Not clear why the pressure is on me in particular to provide a new case just because I pointed out that the old one is bad. This is some of the worst mafia logic I've yet seen in my time here. Shooting the messenger all the way.

I'm not pressuring you to make a new case. I was just replying to your post. The way you wrote that particular sentence is scummy because you are clearly stalling.

One of the great things about Storr's play is that he makes people react to certain situations, like you are reacting to his case on Virus. Even if that case doesn't hold up, it made you ultra defensive for little reason. This makes me feel even better to have my vote on you.

Yes, Storr got the reaction he wanted. That's why I was most suspicious of him until this latest post. If he's scum, it's a brilliant move to deflect attention to someone else who made a "mistake," and if virus flips town then he can just fall back on my defense.

Yes, I agree. This is also why I was reluctant to post early on. However, seeing you react like you did made me change my mind. I'm coming after you, doesn't make Storr drop off my rader

Where to start

I'll just add my comments in the quote, underlined.

[Silver_Samus]

Oh my, I'll be carefull to make my next posts a bit cleaner...

[virus90]

wow, liar, really? i cleared that already
but once again then;
because I THOUGHT you where having a fight, and I THOUGHT it happened before. and I have apologized for that and said i was wrong.
so i saw no reason to say anything about that..

Fpéd

[pancakemix]

Second, I fail to see how this is WIFOM. My case is that Virus was trying to out spiesr. If that's the wine in front of me, what's the wine in front of you?

It's WIFOM because an equally valid argument can be made that the post pushes virus towards town, because no mafia who is an experienced player would be so stupid as to try to out spiesr in like the first post of D1. (And then it continues, well, of course we would conclude that because virus is an experienced player, so maybe it's a trick, etc.) This is really simple, and it doesn't stop being WIFOM because you can't think hard enough to consider more than one perspective.

Again, that's weak, and a huge stretch of the whole WIFOM concept. An argument that has an opposite does not WIFOM make. By that rate any argument is WIFOM and this game is stupid and no one should ever play it. If all arguments devolve into recursive mindgames, there's no point.

Nevertheless, I will humor you: you suggested that it was either mental error or bad play on virus' part, now you've added that there's the possibility that virus IS scum and is playing a trick. What I'm advocating is that bad play and mental error should both be punished. I don't even know what your argument is, seeing as you've given three of them in two posts and one of them has virus as scum while the others do not.

WIFOM is often used as a scum tactic to try and confuse town. Seeing as you're the only one to suggest that it could be WIFOM (and seeing as my suggestion is pretty straightforward, I don't know how you could logically insert that in there based on my case), it's not unreasonable to think you might be trying to create misdirection. And while I'm glad you're considering making a case, not actually doing that and trying to muddy the case we do have is pretty damn useless on all counts. If you'd rather be unproductive than exhaust our current leads, we don't need you.

Unvote Vote Mets

Not clear why the pressure is on me in particular to provide a new case just because I pointed out that the old one is bad.

Because we're here to play a game. We want to play it. We found a way to play it. You said our way was wrong. We still want to play the game. You're telling us we can't. If you don't provide an alternative, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.

Why are you ignoring the fact you lied about storr and I

He corrected himself, no need to harp on it.

[Metsfanmax]

Again, that's weak, and a huge stretch of the whole WIFOM concept. An argument that has an opposite does not WIFOM make. By that rate any argument is WIFOM and this game is stupid and no one should ever play it. If all arguments devolve into recursive mindgames, there's no point.

No, there are plenty of arguments that have "opposites" that do not fall under WIFOM. For example, if you think virus is scum and I defending him because I am also scum, there's no WIFOM there. There's no particular reason for me to actively defend him if I'm town. (In this case I am not defending him, I am calling out a bad argument. Also, see my post above: if you're voting for me, that means you think virus is scum and therefore I'm defending him, which makes it completely unclear why you're voting for me and not him.) But if all this is turning into is a definitional debate, I don't care for that. Whatever you want to call it, the logic is pretty simple: the only way to think that virus is scum is to think that he made an exceedingly stupid comment, and while that's possible, it's not the only possible interpretation. I said it was probably a joke, you asked why this could be, and I provided reasons, which you ignored. virus also pointed out that there's a winking smiley face in his post, which you also seem to have ignored. Nice job.

Nevertheless, I will humor you: you suggested that it was either mental error or bad play on virus' part, now you've added that there's the possibility that virus IS scum and is playing a trick. What I'm advocating is that bad play and mental error should both be punished. I don't even know what your argument is, seeing as you've given three of them in two posts and one of them has virus as scum while the others do not.

I said earlier that there's no way for us to know what virus is based on that post alone. I am providing multiple options because there are multiple options. It's not my fault that multiple theories fit the facts; I'm just providing them to show you why adhering to only one (virus is scum) is a bad idea.

WIFOM is often used as a scum tactic to try and confuse town. Seeing as you're the only one to suggest that it could be WIFOM (and seeing as my suggestion is pretty straightforward, I don't know how you could logically insert that in there based on my case), it's not unreasonable to think you might be trying to create misdirection. And while I'm glad you're considering making a case, not actually doing that and trying to muddy the case we do have is pretty damn useless on all counts. If you'd rather be unproductive than exhaust our current leads, we don't need you.

This is bullshit and you know it. The reason I abstained until now is that the second I do something like vote pancakemix, four of you will jump on me for an OMGUS vote. I don't want to play that game right now, but looks like I have no choice. However, it should be obvious that the only one creating misdirection is your side. What I basically said was, I'm done with this case. You're the one who keeps insisting that we should have a debate about this when I was saying that there's nothing there. I don't want to discuss this, because this discussion is the misdirection.

[StorrZerg]

FYI id be nice if someone could talk a bit about mets mafia play, or direct me to a previous game where he was mafia.

The only game i ever played with him(breaking bad iirc) i pinged out several mafia, and was very set on them being lynched. He consistently defended them similarly to how he defends people today. I have to think its more so how i approach the game, and how i get reads. Case and point on virus, i saw something that appears to be scummy. I explained it i pushed it. Mets sees things generally from a more innocent perspective, specially on day 1 / 2.

[Metsfanmax]

FYI id be nice if someone could talk a bit about mets mafia play, or direct me to a previous game where he was mafia.

I actually don't remember any CC mafia games where I started as mafia. The only time I do remember being mafia was in the recent Jack the Ripper game where I replaced a mafia member after I died. It did not turn out well for me

Mets sees things generally from a more innocent perspective, specially on day 1 / 2.

It's honestly just a numbers thing for me. Usually about 3/4 of the members are town on D1 and so the chances that anyone actually found scum is fairly low, statistically speaking. I play mafia being aware of my psychological biases as a human: we tend to construct narratives that make sense for us and then convince ourselves of their truth value the more and more we talk about them, and mafia is a game where you have to actively fight that at every turn if you want to make good plays. Perhaps I sometimes go overboard in being cautious though.

[StorrZerg]

Ok my new case on Virus.
I no longer car that he "got confused about myself and tambo" i think its legitimate confusion, not alignment indicative.
I no longer really care about his entry posts into the game.

What i do care about is his current situation on the game.

Lets look at the start, sure virus got some pressure, and he had an early vote on mets.


I really don't like this post Comments in blue

*reads a page of mtam and storr, and wonders if anyone else is playing this game... *

I may not be as active as normal this week myself, we have a major tax deadline on September 15th that I am working crazy hours for.

So basically the case on virus is he was trying to out a power role... and the case he is town is that he wouldn't have admitted not reading the rules if he was scum. I'd say it's a coin flip right now... I'm leaning slightly on the town side though, since I agree that scum is more likely to try to fly under the radar, especially earlier on. (It worked for us the last mafia game I played, most of my teammates were getting accused of scummarizing because they were rarely posting, especially on day 1... and it turns out the accusers were correct, but couldn't get enough support to actually lynch any of us because we didn't post anything inflammatory enough)

Yes im playing aswell, but i now use my 5th ? amendment? (Dutch so i dont have a clue about the US-constitution except that 2nd is guns ) since im a suspect at the moment, and i learned that endlesly defending yourself usually gets more people suspicious on you then it gets people of, especially day 1. but well thats mafia.
It is one thing to only defend yourself, it is another to not be playing the game which i will be trying to prove.
And i have seen the Storr - Mtam fights before, i usually tend to say: Guys keep it down, so Guys keep it down, please keep it friendly.
has been cleared up. How ever this kind of comment doesn't really help the game. Even if he thinks we are truly fighting, he doesn't seem to be interested in motive for either of us, or alignment.
what sparked things off this time?...
And its not helping much. (besides that it distracts from the case on me; so actually, please continue! as usual this part is sarcastic/ironic/cynic)
I think this point, helps to hammer things in that virus is not truly paying attention to the game.

im off to bed, tomorrow might be busy, will see how much i procrastinate
Now this is where he ends. In this entire post, (mind you he hasn't posted that much all together) he has failed to generate conversation, push a read, further the game.
fp by spiesr

His next post would be about realizing he was wrong about myself and tamb. He again fails to give reads on the game.
And here is his last major post to the game. Comments again in blue.

ok i have layed low on the case on me because that works sometimes but with the deadline incoming and the dust not settling i think its time to get in,
first of all unvote my joke vote.

then on the "case"on me. i do get how you could interpret it as role fishing / scummy or whatever but there was no meaning to it from my side, it was a joke. lets quote my 3 posts i made before the game really started at all.

confirm, and you already got my vote streaker or siver samus very suspicious all of this

Confirm that I have received and understand my role pm.

that makes me think your no VT, else it wouldnt have been so hard to understand FOS

(okay few months no mafia for me im enthousiastic, im sorry)

LETS GET THEM!
been so long, i am looking forward to the game

nice to see 2 new faces: welcome !

and i vote metsfanmax, for being so quick to vote on mtam

the first 3 posts don't matter so much.

i first saying to vote samus, while we are still confirming with a joke, then FOS-ing spiesr with a joke, and then voting metsfanmax with a joke, winking faces and all of it.
ok i could have just said confirm and wait for the opening scene, but as i typed in 2 of the 3 of my posts i was "looking forward to the game" and "im enthousiastic".
i think all of that is clear to see in the way the posts are made, winking faces etc. nothing about it was meant serious. i dont know what more to say about it then this really.
when asked i could have said i had read the rules and that was part of the joke, but at that point i hadnt and i thought why would i lie about it, its a joke, so i just told you.
was it serious? No not at all, was it smart? NO, thats proven, can it be interpreted as scummy: Yes if you want too.

I think the only thing you have done for me right here, is hammer mets point about you making a stupid post or a joke. I think it falls with a stupid joke. Either way, we are at sepft 10th, and you have not so much as given a hoot about other players in the game. No opinion as to anything. You should have had plenty of opportunity considering many people are talking about you. I'm fairly confident if i did not continue my push on you, you would still be lurking and not contributing to the game, and possibly only defending yourself.

[StorrZerg]

@mets are you a power role

[StorrZerg]

Also i wouldn't be opposed to anyone starting a wagon on DJfireside.

Lets be honest, he has 3 posts, last one from the 6th.

[StorrZerg]

I think ill add Iron butterfly to the list of people i'd lynch as well.
mostly seems complaining, does bring up some good points. But fails to give any views his own yet.

ANd ill add jamesker1, he has fallen off as well. Pretty ridicules push on myself (reasoning that is)

Yeah those 3 people seem to have fallen off hard, and don't have any current view on the game. (save for james view on 1 person)

[virus90]

like i said i waited for the storm to pass, i didnt think that happened yes, and i deliberatly waited with posting my opinions on others, since anyone on the wagon against me would call OMGUS vote, and im not gonna vote someone who is defending me at the moment, well "defending", i mean the people who think the case on me has not much merit. the remaining few could be persuaded to join the camp against me, since i would turn against one of them, and maybe some more because lets be honest a day 1 case i would make right now would probably be weak anyway. i didnt want more enemies then i already had.

[StorrZerg]

That post virus, is overly dodgy and defensive. While you avoid doing anything productive.

[Metsfanmax]

I think ill add Iron butterfly to the list of people i'd lynch as well.
mostly seems complaining, does bring up some good points. But fails to give any views his own yet.

ANd ill add jamesker1, he has fallen off as well. Pretty ridicules push on myself (reasoning that is)

Yeah those 3 people seem to have fallen off hard, and don't have any current view on the game. (save for james view on 1 person)

Yes, I'd put my vote on an inactive rather than pcm, if pcm will allow me not to play that game. (Oh and I just realized that technically my vote from the last post will count even though I was just using it rhetorically, so unvote I guess.) Let's see what these folks think about the case on virus, and maybe we can generate some new discussion based on that.

[Iron Butterfly]

I think ill add Iron butterfly to the list of people i'd lynch as well.
mostly seems complaining, does bring up some good points. But fails to give any views his own yet.

ANd ill add jamesker1, he has fallen off as well. Pretty ridicules push on myself (reasoning that is)

Yeah those 3 people seem to have fallen off hard, and don't have any current view on the game. (save for james view on 1 person)

Oh you break my heart. Complain? Lynch me? I like to call it stupid crap that I find annoying.

The thousand dollar question is this, If we had to lynch someone on day one who would be the best option? I would say Virus. Was his comment a joke? Was it a role fish? Do I believe he is scum? I am leaning more to yes then no. He already screwed up with the initial post that put him in the hot seat. He was drunk, he was rusty he was enthusiastic ect....After screwing up you don't follow that up with another screw up....he pretty much admits he skimmed the parts he was claiming were a fight. If your neck is on the line you don't skim important posts to your defense.

In the beginning I was highly suspicious of Spiesr. It appeared he was drawing attention away from the push on Virus. BUT if virus flips mafia would Spiesr have done that if he were mafia? It would be ballsy but I think unlikely.

I think you asked about Met and his past play. Met is playing true to form in that once he has made a decision/opinion he is very stubborn in changing his mind. For him it's about being right and in this case he believes that the initial case was flawed so its about him standing firm in that opinion.

Pancakemix is a lot more verbal then I remember in the past. He usually plays like Jonty by posting and then disappearing for a bit. It was always hard getting a read on him. This game he is more verbal, which really means nothing at this point.

I would agree with the above observations on DJ and James.

vote Virus

[spiesr]

Also, see my post above: if you're voting for me, that means you think virus is scum and therefore I'm defending him, which makes it completely unclear why you're voting for me and not him.)

Not necessarily, wouldn't is be possible for someone to think to that you are scum but were defending a townie that you thought would get lynched anyway to earn town cred when he flips town? Or perhaps as an attempt to slow down the case on him such that it becomes impossible to get another case completed before the deadline after he roleclaims, thus forcing the town to choose between him and no lynch? Now, I it doesn't seem likely that any of those currently voting for you are thinking along such lines, but it is a thing somebody could think.

Whatever you want to call it, the logic is pretty simple: the only way to think that virus is scum is to think that he made an exceedingly stupid comment, and while that's possible, it's not the only possible interpretation.

But, it is a possible interpretation, which might be good enough for Day 1, depending on what else comes up.

Yes im playing aswell, but i now use my 5th ? amendment? (Dutch so i dont have a clue about the US-constitution except that 2nd is guns ) since im a suspect at the moment, and i learned that endlesly defending yourself usually gets more people suspicious on you then it gets people of, especially day 1. but well thats mafia.

It is one thing to only defend yourself, it is another to not be playing the game which i will be trying to prove.

He has a reasonable point. On of the critical skill to prevent your own lynch (at least within the CC meta) is to know how to deflect things thrown against you without making it worse. Far too often players end up talking themselves to death trying to defend themselves. To a certain point the less the total volume of discussion (including your own) about a given point the less likely people will vote you for it.

And i have seen the Storr - Mtam fights before, i usually tend to say: Guys keep it down, so Guys keep it down, please keep it friendly.

has been cleared up. How ever this kind of comment doesn't really help the game. Even if he thinks we are truly fighting, he doesn't seem to be interested in motive for either of us, or alignment.

It helps the game in the sense that it helps it continue to exist. It doesn't help anyone win it. Of course he wasn't interested in what your "fight" meant for your respective alignments, he clearly thought that you were fighting for reasons deriving from personality rather than alignment, which is why he asked you to stop. Now, he was too trigger happy about coming to the conclusion that you were about to break into a derailing personal fight, but I can't use that to glean anything about his alignment either, only to ask that next time he maybe not be so quick to jump on that.

Also i wouldn't be opposed to anyone starting a wagon on DJfireside.
Lets be honest, he has 3 posts, last one from the 6th.

Alright, just let me hop in my time machine and do it back when the issue first became visible.

and i deliberatly waited with posting my opinions on others, since anyone on the wagon against me would call OMGUS vote, and im not gonna vote someone who is defending me at the moment, well "defending", i mean the people who think the case on me has not much merit.

So do so now.

[pancakemix]

No, there are plenty of arguments that have "opposites" that do not fall under WIFOM. For example, if you think virus is scum and I defending him because I am also scum, there's no WIFOM there. There's no particular reason for me to actively defend him if I'm town. (In this case I am not defending him, I am calling out a bad argument. Also, see my post above: if you're voting for me, that means you think virus is scum and therefore I'm defending him, which makes it completely unclear why you're voting for me and not him.) But if all this is turning into is a definitional debate, I don't care for that. Whatever you want to call it, the logic is pretty simple: the only way to think that virus is scum is to think that he made an exceedingly stupid comment, and while that's possible, it's not the only possible interpretation. I said it was probably a joke, you asked why this could be, and I provided reasons, which you ignored. virus also pointed out that there's a winking smiley face in his post, which you also seem to have ignored. Nice job.

Except that you're the one who trotted the term out in the first place. The onus is on you, then, to back up the assertion that the case is WIFOM. You're not doing that. You're just shouting BLAH SEMANTICS and getting mad.

Also, why do I have to think you're defending virus? I clearly stated I wasn't. I said you were trying to misdirect an argument with semantics and generally stifle productivity. Let me be frank: I KNOW the virus case isn't the best, but that's no reason not to talk when there's something to talk about. You just want to end the discussion without an alternative and to go to a random lynch. How does that benefit us? And what really is the difference between lynching someone on a (admittedly) poor pretext and lynching someone for no reason at all?

Of course there are more possibilities. There are like, thousands of permutations in this game. I even suggested a counter to the whole joke thing. Whether it is or it isn't, I still don't see why we shouldn't punish bad play on his part.

Further, I don't see why I have to come out and lick your boots because he said it was a joke. You're the one who called my case WIFOM when it isn't, so if that's the game I expect a response in kind for that one.

I said earlier that there's no way for us to know what virus is based on that post alone. I am providing multiple options because there are multiple options. It's not my fault that multiple theories fit the facts; I'm just providing them to show you why adhering to only one (virus is scum) is a bad idea.

I am saying that the play should be punished regardless, because making such a comment is unwise in any regard and people need to learn from their mistakes. You pose a counter that is not unified, and so I can't actually address what you're trying to say, especially when you suggest he COULD be scum which negates your entire point. No shit there are multiple possibilities. I'm trying to create discussion but when all you say is "we shouldn't have this discussion" it does nothing but waste time.

This is bullshit and you know it. The reason I abstained until now is that the second I do something like vote pancakemix, four of you will jump on me for an OMGUS vote. I don't want to play that game right now, but looks like I have no choice. However, it should be obvious that the only one creating misdirection is your side. What I basically said was, I'm done with this case. You're the one who keeps insisting that we should have a debate about this when I was saying that there's nothing there. I don't want to discuss this, because this discussion is the misdirection.

Why is it bullshit? You tried to dismiss the argument in a word, I showed why it was faulty, and you threw a hissy fit. You're the one who started the semantics game, I expect to see you finish it. Why isn't it grounds for a vote if you just want to end discussion? It's certainly more than there is on virus.

Also, what do I have to misdirect from? There was no other discussion going on when you said that except the one from Silver involving you. You would only say that because you're MAD.

[Metsfanmax]

No, there are plenty of arguments that have "opposites" that do not fall under WIFOM. For example, if you think virus is scum and I defending him because I am also scum, there's no WIFOM there. There's no particular reason for me to actively defend him if I'm town. (In this case I am not defending him, I am calling out a bad argument. Also, see my post above: if you're voting for me, that means you think virus is scum and therefore I'm defending him, which makes it completely unclear why you're voting for me and not him.) But if all this is turning into is a definitional debate, I don't care for that. Whatever you want to call it, the logic is pretty simple: the only way to think that virus is scum is to think that he made an exceedingly stupid comment, and while that's possible, it's not the only possible interpretation. I said it was probably a joke, you asked why this could be, and I provided reasons, which you ignored. virus also pointed out that there's a winking smiley face in his post, which you also seem to have ignored. Nice job.

Except that you're the one who trotted the term out in the first place. The onus is on you, then, to back up the assertion that the case is WIFOM. You're not doing that. You're just shouting BLAH SEMANTICS and getting mad.

Hey, you know what's cool? When I provide reasons that the case is WIFOM, and then you ignore them and pretend like I didn't actually make them. I'll copy/paste it for you here since reading doesn't seem to be your strongest suit in this game (it shouldn't have been. Then I'm done with you.

It's WIFOM because an equally valid argument can be made that the post pushes virus towards town, because no mafia who is an experienced player would be so stupid as to try to out spiesr in like the first post of D1. (And then it continues, well, of course we would conclude that because virus is an experienced player, so maybe it's a trick, etc.) This is really simple, and it doesn't stop being WIFOM because you can't think hard enough to consider more than one perspective.

[pancakemix]

Hey, you know what's cool? When I provide reasons how that isn't WIFOM and you don't ignore them or me just because. Since reading hasn't been your strong suit this game, I'll copy/paste it for you.

Again, that's weak, and a huge stretch of the whole WIFOM concept. An argument that has an opposite does not WIFOM make. By that rate any argument is WIFOM and this game is stupid and no one should ever play it. If all arguments devolve into recursive mindgames, there's no point.

If your response to getting caught in your own stupid arguments is to shut out the person showing you your error, I'm fine lynching you just to get you out of the game, nevermind my arguments.