You assume that by interesting I mean suspicious. I see this as part of your defensiveness.

And it does invalidate the argument that Sky is in no danger, as it shows you clearly believe he's capable of being lynched before you have time to post your response. This adds to my perception that you are involved with one of your schemes in lieu of scum hunting. As pinky promise shows this is NAI behavior for you, so interesting is much more appropriate wording than suspicious.

Oh, so you're only making observations with nothing else to add? Wrt to my supposed defensiveness.

It does not invalidate the argument. Strictly because I know full well that I am capable of being wrong.

And what scheme would that be? Playing bad cop?

You're defensiveness is also NAI at this point as you might simply really want a chance to use the role you received. It is noted, however, in case it is relevant at a future point.

It absolutely does, as your argument is that it is highly unlikely sky will be swerve lynched and thus not in danger. If that is true there is no need to remove your vote. But by doing so you admit you don't believe he is actually safe from a swerve lynch, meaning you willfully placed him in danger likely to simply be bad cop to Zinger's also bad cop.

Likely that is at least part of it.

It does not as I am not strictly running counter to my own argument. Yes, my stated words do not jive with my action, but that in and of itself does not lend to me strictly disavowing any stances I have taken. Suffice it to say, my unvote of Skystone runs true to my stated reason: that I am human. I can analyze the situation and come to a conclusion which I did; however, it is not a hill I am willing to die on to prove a point.

I lose nothing by being cautious with the time to further see what the day entails. Even if it is my defensiveness of my bad cop.

So caution was completely unnecessary in bringing skystone to L-1 but was demanded in replying to one of his posts in the span of 4 hours? Why not revote once Zinger had also removed his vote then?

The fundamental observation here is that your actions have been contrary to your words. They do not have to be directly counter to them to contradict them. What we are shown is that you do not actually believe the arguments you are throwing out, evidenced by your words not jiving with your actions per your own admission. This furthers the notion that you're playing to some other end rather than scum hunting.

Yes, caution was demanded. Skystone was put at L-1 and left there for several hours. Arrgh didn't hammer, nor did you or Dusky. While my assessment may have been right, I could still be wrong as each moment changes up to the point where one of you does vote Skystone. But that won't be realized due to umvotimg him.

Revoting Skystone is certainly an option, but there are other discussions going on. It is not necessary to revote at this time.

Strictly speaking I both believe and do not believe what I say. I'm contradictory that way. And yes, bad cop as well as scum hunting despite your assessment.

@KoD: Should I reply to your second manifesto?

As far as voting is concerned, my inclination presently is to vote: Monster. Aaarrrgh isn't really lurking, he's Aaarrrgh-ing. He's present and posting, if less than most of us.

Monster has posted once. She offered nothing of substance except petty vengeance. Allegedly, this is NIA (in that she seems to avoid Day 1s), but town benefits from information, so insofar as there are no candidates, we might as well lynch the person with least accountability.

I do find the dog-pile on me strange. I'd already engaged KoD by the time that Zinger and KoD chose to vote, so the "pressure" angle doesn't hold water: I was already more than willing to do the back and forth. Why put me at L-1 when the other three players still haven't picked sides, except in the hope that somebody breaks and jumps on?

Plus, they both backed off once Aaarrrgh would be the tiebreak (knowing that he wouldn't want to break the tie).

Lack of posting does not mean I am not watching and reading people. It also doesn't mean I'm unaccountable. It just means I've not put forward my opinions yet. It doesn't mean I don't have them or won't share them in due time.

You're just looking for what you perceive to be an easy target, which is probably a scumtell.

Oh, and random voting stage is probably over. I should probably unvote to avoid coming off as petty.

Or I could not give a **** and keep my vote where it is. Tomato, tomato.

Skystone is honestly acting shifty anyway. Maybe it's the extra pressure on him, or maybe not. Let's find out which.

You don't have to respond to the second manifesto if you are not inclined to do so.

Given the players we have, both Arrgh and Monster could be considered lurkers.

Zinger had no bearing on the analysis ***I*** made when ***I*** chose to put you at L-1. Not only that, but the level of engagement differs when you do so prior to being at L-1 and after. Suffice it to say, you have reacted on both accounts.

We both didn't back off strictly because of Arrgh or at all. I've been more than upfront about why unvoted despite the clash it creates with the action and stated analysis I made concerning none of those three voting you (potentially). For his part, Zinger was happy with the reactions generated by all this. None of those two things aligns with what you're saying so you're intentionally misrepresenting both Zinger and I in that regard.

Is he though? Seems to me more that he's just presenting his interpretation of the events. You claim misrepresentation because Sky's account doesn't jive with you and Zinger's stated reasons for backing off, but we've already established today that your words and actions often don't jive. There's also the fact that scum will openly lie. So not taking you at your word is hardly an intentional misrepresentation since there's nothing to guage by but your actions. Seems to me like you might be the one intentionally misrepresenting.

@HW, when's hard deadline? We've reached soft deadline so how serious should we be getting and how quickly?

Hard deadline is in 24 hours.

KingOfDominaria(1):JayDreven
M0nster(2):Duskyblue,Skystone
Skystone(1):M0nster

Deadline is at 17:39 UTC

With 7 player alive it's 4 votes to lynch.

Yes, he is. I touched upon it, lightly, in my post as to why that is. It's not so much that I have this perspective because what he's saying doesn't jive with what I am saying, but rather what he is saying does not align with the stated words and their intent. Here.

From Skystone
[quoteI do find the dog-pile on me strange. I'd already engaged KoD by the time that Zinger and KoD chose to vote, so the "pressure" angle doesn't hold water: I was already more than willing to do the back and forth. Why put me at L-1 when the other three players still haven't picked sides, except in the hope that somebody breaks and jumps on?[/quote]

The majority of this, despite my disagreement, is not an issue aside from the last part. I took the liberty to underline it.



Here is where Skystone's representation of our (read: my) actions breaks down into misrepresentation.

To properly relay this, consider that Skystone asserted, in the first quote, his willingness to go back and forth and had already engaged us, thus why the dog-pile of votes for the sake of pressure as it doesn't make sense? Now, consider that I had already did a self analysis of the players in the game wrt to the placement of the votes and those not voting Skystone. That is, only four people were not voting Skystone: himself, Dusky, JD, and Arrgh.

I, confidently, surmised that both Dusky and JD would not vote Skystone. Dusky would not because, as indicated by her words, she doesn't view Skystone as scum yet. Indeed, her reaction to the votes on him cemented an anti-vote Skystone perspective that I could trust to hold true more or less. With JD, I had the perspective they're too friendly to see Skystone get lynched right away over good cop/bad cop antics. That, and they're birds of a feather (lol).

That leaves Arrgh, and I am confident on how passive and cautious of a player Arrgh is that he wouldn't necessarily be willing to be the hammer vote (as the potential sole scum).

That ultimately means that when ***I*** placed the vote on Skystone to put him at L-1, I was banking on my analysis to not see another vote, from one of the three (JD, Dusky, or Arrgh), pop up on Skystone. This directly and unequivocally shows that Skystone's perception that the point of putting him at L-1 in the hopes of Arrgh (of all people) would drop a hammer vote is, ultimately, false. Thus, Skystone was angling for misrepresenting us. Intentionally.

Just as he has asserted that pressure on him didn't make sense because he showed his participation already, I am asserting that Skystone's analysis doesn't make sense (indeed, it amounts to misrepresentation) because I fully showed forethought in knowing/assessing that none of the three would vote for Skystone (or that it was highly unlikely anyway).

One final note regarding the L-1 vote: Skystone has aimed to bundle Zinger and I together in this regard when, ultimately, it was ***my*** sole decision to place the L-1 vote without coordination with Zinger. In trying to bundle us together, Skystone is, intentionally or not, trying to put blame on both of us when the blame is mine and mine alone.


Finally, with respect to the unvotes my unvote, wrt to Skystone's claim, is the one that ultimately matters. Skystone asserted they, the unvotes, happened upon realization that Arrgh would have to be the vote to seal the deal. As I said above, that was already made known that Arrgh would not vote Skystone. Unrelated to Skystone's assessment, my unvote (as stated) was simply to give me more time in the event I was wrong and someone did choose to vote Skystone before I could respond to him. That, in and of itself, doesn't jive with Skystone's assessment since I unvote realizing Arrgh wont' vote Skystone despite voting in the first place knowing Arrgh won't vote Skystone. This, as opposed to the stated reason that it was done to give me more time to avoid a possible lynch (and indeed continues to render more discussion and opinion due to not realizing that reality where a lynch may have occurred if at all assuming I was wrong in assessing them).


Suffice it to say, again, yes, Skystone is misrepresenting us (read: me). Skystone's assessment not only fails to jive with reality, it fails to jive with the implications and consequences of what he is asserting based on what has been said and done. That is, he fails to come up with a consistent behavior for me as his assessment says one thing about me like intending to see him lynched hopefully only to realize it won't happen vs going into voting him knowing he won't be voted.

It necessarily means that you're not accountable. There's nothing to account for when you decline to post. Day 1 is almost over, you have contributed nothing of value, and "due course" in your mind apparently entails some moment after town make a lynch. It's abundantly clear to us all that you only bothered to appear because I pressured you to do so.

Your only contribution thus far is "Skystone called me out; I guess I'd better OMGUS." This happens to be the same strategy that you employed as scum last game versus KoD.

You are also clearly not an easy target. Much like KoD, you retaliate twofold.

Actually, Monster was posting a lot. When called out about being scum, she lurked.

That's different from what is going on right here. 0 for 2.

At this point I am going to fully commit to a Skystone lynch. Twice now he's misrepresented people in a manner that I find to be intentional. First, in my case, his assessment ran counter to my own actions (hoping Arrgh would lynch vs knowing Arrgh wouldn't lynch at the start). Now, his portrayal of Monster (and invoking my name specifically in reference to his example) does not mesh with what actually happened.

Vote: Skystone

I don't feel a potential lurker lynch is necessary. I'd rather, in the event of lynching a lurker -- Arrgh or Monster -- I'd rather no lynch and see who the scum kills. If I get to choose a lynch target, I feel Skystone makes a good choice given what I've pointed out.

@KoD: You seem to mistakenly assume that other players should care what you claim as motivations. This could not be further from correct. Mafia is premised on deceit, so unless I know for a fact that you are town, then every word you say is necessarily suspect. It does not at all suffice, in any sense or in any manner, that you have proposed a reason 'justifying' your behavior. In fact, if that were so, then the simple fact of me claiming a thing would be enough to guarantee that thing must be true.

But none of us here can engage in telepathy, so your in-game goals and motivations are nothing more than claims that we must regard as suspect.