MTG Salvation

**
Thank you.
We can’t have a discussion if you simply call me scummy, for much of the game refuse to say why and when you finally do you refuse to respond to my questions or simply dismiss my explanations.


Originally Posted by Hawkeye
I've actually been preoccupied and haven't viewed the thread since early Saturday. I hope that everyone other then Cyan will at least allow me to respond to Cyan's masterpiece of logical and deductive reasoning before voting to lynch me. Please. I also hope that everyone other then Cyan will actually read my responses.
Thank you.

Cyan, I see you finally scrounged up the guts to try to actually make a case against me instead of your ineffectual sniping all game long that I'm scummy.
Well, I for one, appreciate you doing as I have asked you more then once to do and I do appreciate how difficult it must have been for you. It's not easy to completely misinterpreted and/or misrepresent my posts. Especially as it is clear that you have no idea what I was doing or what I am doing now.

I will post my response to the PBPA shortly. As for a complete claim, well I have already done it. Since I haven't yet read through your PBPA yet, I have to ask, do you think I am lying about what I have claimed? If not it makes no sense to ask me to completely claim. I have already done so. You have my role name and my ability. What more is it you are looking for?


Here, Hawkeye starts in on deriding my PBPA, as well as insulting me personally. A PBPA which he repeatedly called for. This is just the first of many such posts as Hawkeye responds to the case I presented. Considering that Hawkeye has repeatedly stated that he considers me town, and considering that he repeatedly asked for a case to be brought against him, his attitude makes no sense. Unless you come to the conclusion that he's just trying to draw out a fight and slow down the town.

**Cyan, I was trying to have a discussion of the points you found scummy about my play. You stonewalled that for 80% of the game. You admit that I repeatedly asked you to respond and you finally did with the PBPA. Put yourself in my position. After asking so many times for a case from an increasingly hostile player would not you be just a little sarcastic when he finally posted one? And when you finally got to read that case you found it to frequently completely ignore important points in many of your posts,
miss the point or meaning of almost every other one? If you say you would not have been sarcastic then you are a better man then I.
Also why does my attitude make no sense? I considered you town based on Axelrod’s support for part of you role claim and also based on the way you reacted to my game play. BUT after a certain point a player of your caliber should have been able to see something other then incomprehensible behavior. I don’t seem to have tipped anyone’s scum bar to a significant degree with these posts of mine but you find not just a few of them as scummy but virtually every single one of them.
Something is wrong with that.

Quote:
How did I Know about the locations?
How did you not?
Maybe I think like Israel or maybe I flatter myself that I do. I have said on many occasions posted that I play this game intuitively. There are times that I simply know things and I honestly can't explain how I do. It just struck me as a perfect aspect to this game that should be there. As to why Hair did not pick up on the clues I dropped I can't say. I don't know. I thought I was fairly obvious and direct in trying to get a discussion of the locations going. I directly questioned him about it and I still maintain that if his role is as he described, then he misplayed that part. I did not constantly role-play as the director. I used the director to frame the post as an episode of the Truman Show and the content of the post to build my unclaimed role claim.


Obviously I have no idea how you know about locations. Why would you even ask me that? This is scummy, because you are clearly trying to make my position look worse by forcing me to admit to not having knowledge that I could not possibly have in the first place.

**No it’s not scummy.
You asked me how I knew of the locations, I still think it was an obvious possibility based on all the game set up information we received. I was asking you how you missed that. As it turned out I was right and when Hair came out stating his ability was based on moving to locations, I questioned him on it. If he had mentioned that fact at any point after I had made my repeated requests that we possibly move the group I would have had reason to believe his claim. If I had a role like his and someone had asked about moving I would have at the very least suggested that we might consider that idea. As I said I think Hair miss played this. Since he did not mention anything along these lines I assumed he was lying. I think the whole episode is pretty clear.
Quote:
Why not do what?
Say goofy things like what?
Why don't you ask Israel why he put all the work he did into designing this game? He has crafted a game that some will not truly appreciate. I wanted to try my best to do his work justice.
Honestly, if I can make someone think about what they are reading and see what deeper meaning there is beyond the obvious then I am happy. I simply have to rely on the ability of players to pick up on what I am trying to tell them. Many players do and I hope that they see some value in it. Some people simply can't or don't.

Anyway, thanks for posting so I can post this first part of my response to your PBPA.


So, what you're saying is that it's okay that you have contributed virtually nothing to this game, because you role-played while do so? Sorry, but I disagree. Essentially, via your role-playing, you just active-lurked. You managed to post plenty, without ever really saying anything. How is this doing the game justice?

**It’s like being invited to a Halloween costume party and showing up in your regular cloths with a polka dot tie or showing up in a soot suit, polished spats, broad brim hat and a wild green mask. One shows your appreciation for the invite and the other doesn’t.
as for my post not having content. I disagree. Just because you did not or could not see the points I made does not mean they weren’t there. I have tried to do something I normally don’t do and explain, in detail exactly what I was trying to do in each of the responses I have made so far to your PBPA. You have been very vocal in dismissing them as merely restating the post I made. If that is the case then you should have understood the point I made the first time I made it. Sadly you did not and not you have tried to shout down my attempts to explain.


Quote:
Not meaningless, but it is role-playing. As I mentioned earlier I had a theory that moving in the game setting would possibly be of importance and this was my first post that talked about the group moving. It also was the start of what I thought was pretty obvious bread crumbing of my role character.


It's meaningless. It's also worth noting that Israel essentially disabused your theory regarding this role-playing with a later vote count. And yet, you still lynched Hair based upon the fact that he didn't pick up on your ridiculous vague clues regarding this. Even though no one else picked up on them either, and multiple people had said as much before you voted him.

**If it were meaningless we would not have other players in the game role playing. There would not have specifically been instructions in the sign up regarding role playing. I had a theory about role playing and I tried to verify it. As for Hair. AGAIN, you have to look at what happened from his perspective. HE, not you, had a role that was directly impacted by moving to locations. He should have been looking for ways to do that or information on how that might happen. I made several direct suggestions that the group possible move to a different location. That it might be good for us to do so. Hair never posted anything that suggested he had even seen my posts. Now if he was suspicious of me then I would have expected him to try to question me or make a case against me if he thought I was scum. He did not. It was not until he was under suspicion as being scum that he brought it up and he did in a manner that looked to me like he was a scum player grabbing at straws to keep from being lynched. That’s why I voted for him and I stand by it.


Quote:
2nd attempt to get the idea of moving around out there and possibly discussed. If it was a mechanic in the game I wanted to see if anyone would respond before simply blurting out my theory. I will honestly try not to take gratuities swipes at Cyan for his lack if insight or his blatant misrepresenting my posts.
Here he says I gave “Apparently serious vote on Carrion Pigeons, without even the most remote explanation of it.” now, I ask you , how can you not see why I voted for CP from what I posted?
This is what I posted:

It is obvious that I went through the thread and assigned a numerical rating to each post based on how I viewed the post in relation to it being suspicious or not.
I ask you, does it seem like I voted for CP without the most remote explanation of it?


I think this can hardly be called an 'attempt' at putting forth your theory. In fact, I really don't see where, in that post, that you say anything about your theory about locations. Maybe you can point this out for us. As for voting for CP, nowhere do you explain WHY you voted for him. Saying 'Gram +7, CP -5' means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Assuming that is supposed to be a scale, what is it a scale of? Why did you come to that conclusion? Etc, etc. This is just another example of active lurking on your part. You're acting like you're participating in the game, but it's really just smoke and mirrors. I mean honestly, how can you come down on me for just saying you were scummy all game w/o presenting a major case(something I always intended to do, but was just waiting for the right time), when your apparent idea of 'explaining your suspicions of someone' is :CP -7 = most suspicious person in the game.

**Post grading is something I had done since I started playing mafia. I do know that this practice is done by other players as well. If you don’t do this cyan, you might think about trying it. If you are ignorant of this practice than I can’t defend this post to you, but I have very clearly explained what this post was and why I made it.



Quote:
Hamm, I don’t think I’m reading the same post as you here Cyan. I complimented Raff on a choice post he made questioning Byre. I continued to build my unclaimed role claim by directly quoting a line from the movie my character is from, I directly asked people in the game what their experience has been with multi votes and that role being non-townie, and I voiced my support for the masons to remain hidden. I know you completely missed my role clue but to characterize this post of mine as meaningless role-playing and the only thing of note is a minor attempt to discredit CP is simply missing the mark by 2/3’s. Meaning, there where three points made in this post and you either missed or ignored two of them.


I'm not sure why you feel it's important to mention the fact that you complimented Raff. That really doesn't mean anything, especially since, of course, you're not saying what is 'Grade A' about his post anyway. And you can try to spin it all you want, but to me, it seems fairly apparent that asking people if they've seen games where a multi-voter was non-town is an attempt to make Cap’s role seem less town than it is. This, again, is consistent with your previous attempt at saying CP Was suspicious, without explaining why. Except now, you're just trying to goad other people into making Cap’s claim less valid. If you don't think his claim made him town, why didn't you simply say as much? And I really don't see why you went through all of this sub-claiming to begin with. Even beyond that, I don't see why you feel the need to continually point this out. We all believe that your role is Truman. Your irrational insistence on mentioning all of these instances where you bread crumbed this(especially since bread crumbing is, at best, a non-tell anyway)

**When I read a particularly good post, one that makes a particularly pointiest point of a point in a intelligent manner, I like to acknowledge it. With Raff’s post that’s all that was. Read into it what you want to cyan, but sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

Regarding CP, I was openly suspicious of him and I wanted the opinion of others who had more experience with that particular ability to comment on the likelihood of that type of ability being scum. You seem to miss the fact that after this question I move onto other suspects them CP because the response I got made me reconsider him somewhat.
Gram asked me why the bread crumbing and when I questioned him on it he seemed to realize that there is an obvious answer to this question. Perhaps it is not as obvious as we thought.

Quote:
I really must try to be more obvious in what I post. I, again, alluded to my role character by the use of the term risk management in a sarcastic question to DHY that was indeed baiting. But since I had already come out and clearly stated I did not think the Masons should come out and claim, the meaning of that statement was to try to get DHY to come out and clearly state whether or not he thought they should.
Cyan, Did you completely miss the post where I answered the question as to what 816KAZ is? If you did here is the answer I gave. Google it. Again building on the unclaimed role claim for my character.


I'd love for you to point out where you 'gave your opinion' regarding the masons, because I'm not seeing that. I also fail to see how it is pro-town behavior to try to bait someone into giving a particular answer. Why not just directly ask?


**http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=2126277&postcount=1559
Cyan, I had been directly asking you, all game to provide answers to questions I asked you and to put forth a case against me. Until very recently it got me now where. By baiting DHY, who at the time I was no’s sure was Town or mafia I was giving him more rope to potentially hang himself then I would have if I had asked him a direct questions or worse a yes or no questions. It was about trying to get a player to go on record and post as much information as possible that could be used to either confirm or incite him later.


Quote:
At this point in the game I had no Idea Loran was definitely scum. The point the made that I agreed with was valid and I still agree with it. I disagree that the PBPA that Gram did was as entirely negative as Byres was. I do think that at this point in the game you had been playing differently and since you had not yet claimed I saw that difference and the valid points I saw in Gram’s PBPA more then enough to justify my voting for you. Frankly, it is only Axe’s confirmation of some of the points of your claim that makes you less of a suspect now.


Why would you even make a statement like 'I had no idea that Loran was scum'. Are we supposed to believe you just because you say so? If you're scum, which is my conclusion, then you absolutely did know that Loran was scum as well. The point is that your interaction here with a known scum was dodgy, which you're being called on. Saying 'I didn't know he was scum' is ridiculous, because obviously you're not going to say anything else. And the PBPA that Gram did, if anything, was vastly MORE negative than Byre’s, because Gram spent at least half of it going out of his way to be insulting. It is blatant hypocrisy to attack Byre for being negative, but not Gram, just because you wanted to barn him.

**Cyan, think about what you just said. If “I did not know he was scum” is ridiculous, because I’m not going to say anything else”, then what do you expect me to say? If you are dead set against considering, or letting other consider, the possibility that I am telling the truth, then you have created a no win situation. In your eyes I’m damned if I say what I said, the truth, and I damned if I say anything else because it was not the obvious answer a player in the situation your are trying to create would say.


Quote:
Does not make sense to you?
Let me ask you a question Cyan. If this post does not make any sense to you, then how do you know I was being subtle?
You are rightly looking at this post with reading glasses of hindsight but you are not also thinking of what was known at that time in the game. This was the first possible confirmation of a role in the game like mine that did not draw from the Matrix Universe. I believed the claim but not that it cleared Alsea as a townie. Only that his name claim was probably true.


Just because the post as a whole doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it's not obvious that you're trying to backup at seal’s claim, based upon nothing. If you didn't believe it cleared at seal, I fail to see why you didn't just say this. Instead, what you did was go along with as much of his claim as had been provided, without remotely trying to get more information from him. This doesn't jive with the knowledge of the game that was available at that time, in my opinion. Also, as scum, it gives you plenty of room to go back, just like you're doing now, and try to wiggle your way out. You've done this all game. The only time you really concretely tied yourself to anything was my wagon, and even then, you mostly just burned someone else's PBPA.

**Ok, it’s my turn to say you are not making sense to me. I am a player with a non-Matrix character for a role. There have been several players revealed or claimed to have Matrix based roles. Here is a player who claims another non-Matrix role. Think about it. Yes, it would make sense to me that he could be telling the truth about his role because I also had a non-Matrix role. You claim to have a non-Matrix role. Did this not strike you as a possibility as well? That is an interesting point. I will have to go back and look at everyone who has claimed to have a non-matrix role to see how they reacted to the first few non-matrix role claims that came out and the ones that have now been confirmed. They should have a positive or neutral reactions. Possibly with questions to the claimant.

Quote:
I questioned how an Agent could be town. I voiced encouragement to Spoon, Raff and Byre leading the discussion at this point of the game.
It was not All’s wagon evaporating that I attacked CP for it was the fact that there were two bandwagons Alt’s and Yours Cyan that evaporated at near the same time that CP was lamenting but oddly enough he was not a part of either. He had his vote on Sutherlands. If either of those bandwagons were really of interest to him why did he not put his vote where his mouth was and vote for either? How is it that you have completely misread this post to eliminate yourself from the discussion and how is it that you completely missed what I was really attacking CP for?


What is the point in questioning how an Agent can be town, when we knew, conclusively, that one was town? Again, this comes across to me as active lurking. And I didn't misread the post, it's woefully obvious from Cap’s post that he is referring to at seal’s wagon because he directly mentions at seal in his post. Beyond that, as I said, it's fairly obvious that you're just trying to force him into attacking me. His position on at seal could not have been more plain.

**So it is undeniable that because CP has voiced regret that the Cyan and Alsea wagons had dissolved and at the same time he was voting for Sutherlands, that he is town? Could this not have, just as easily been a scum players voicing support for two failing bandwagons to gains credibility with no risk and keeping his vote on a player that was also at no risk of being lynched?


Quote:
Again, building the unclaimed role claim. I pointed out to Byre that there was at least one other possibility to the question he was commenting on, what Aram’s post told us about who might have wanted him dead at that point in the game. I did say that CP could have done it to make Alsea look bad. I stand by this. Yes, in hindsight, with the knowledge we have now that Alsea was scum this looks bad. It is still possible. It is unlikely but it is possible that one scum was distancing himself from another . I admit it is a long shot and if you want to use my possibly being wrong here to build your case against me then I say you have a board you can build with.


It looks bad regardless of hindsight. It makes no sense that CP would be a multi-voter AND somehow be able to day kill people. It also makes no sense for you to continue trying to throw dirt on CP, without ever providing an actual reason why you were doing so, and particularly without voting him.

**We are all wrong about some players in this game from time to time Cyan. As you will see for yourself, yet again shortly. Some of us are able to admit it when we are. In this case I was wrong about him and I said so.

Quote:
I have already stated why I initially thought that Alsea’s name claim was true. I too had a role outside of the Matrix universe. Here I give more reasons why I thought it was a perfect choice of a role in this game. I say again, this does not mean that the role is town. At this point I did not have at seal as either town or mafia.


If anything, this explanation only makes you look more scummy, not less so. All you're saying here is that you didn't commit to a real opinion on at seal, you just stated belief of his claimed name. Which is great for a scum, and terrible for a townie.

**This makes little sense to me. I stand by this response and by my original post.


Quote:

Ok, there is a recurring scene in the movie of Truman being stopped in front of various advertising posters for what amounted to product placement commercials. This is a parody of that. I thought it was rather well done.
This second part is what I find very surprising that Cyan could not even pick up on. How did you miss this Cyan?
I speculate a little more openly now on another theory I had about the game and the role playing in it. My role indicated nothing about role-playing or it’s effect on the game. I come right out and state this. How did you not understand it Cyan?
We knew from the get go that it did have some effect on the game and there were a couple of other players who were role-playing early on besides myself. As it turns out we now know there is some mechanic that may or may not cause or force a player to role-play. I have never role-played in this game for any other reason then I wanted to.


What does any of this post have to do with anything? Seriously, I don't get it. It's disconcerting, to me, that you spend so much time and effort sub-claiming your role and role-playing, and so little time actually contributing anything to ongoing events.

****You don’t get it? How much clearer do I have to be?
We were told in the set up that role playing was to be a part of the game. Ok, what would that entail? How would it work? What if players who chose to role play from the start had some effect happen to them? What if some roles benefited from role playing in ways that would become apparent later in the game? What if there were players who had to role play as a form of posting restriction?
All these things played through my mind. I enjoy role playing in some games for various reasons and I decided to try that I was going to role play and I would try to find out if it effected me. It did not. That did not mean that it would not effect others or that someone in the game did not have a role ability that focused on role playing. I expressed some of my thoughts in order to try to coax out a response from other players. Since it was possible I would be tipping off a scum players with this kind of ability I did it gradually and subtly. I also looked for reactions to the role playing discussion.
Now we know that either certain players role played by choice or were forced to. If they were forced to I was right again in a theory I had made about the game and potentially we could learn from this.
To do so we need to go back to each incident of players discussing role-playing. There was a discussion of it early on in the game and see how players reacted to that discussion. We could look act players reacted to my own role playing and we can look at the reactions to those other players who recently appeared to be forced to role play, DYH, Raff and possibly others.




Quote:
No, not meaningless.
This is by far the most obvious unclaimed role claim building post directly quoting the movie and it responded to Zeds’ speculation regarding role-playing.


See above. It is ridiculous how much time you, by your own admission here, spent building up your own role claim. You have done more of that than anything else, which is why I accuse you of actively lurking.

**See above. To ignore the fact that this is a mechanic in this game and, at best, there is valuable information to be gained by examining it. At worst we loose nothing by reviewing this.



Quote:
Wow, I am surprised that you caught this Cyan. Earlier in the game, when I said I found CP the most suspicious player in the game and voted for him I also said that the second most suspicious player was a bit of a surprise to me and that I would keep an eye on him. That player is Fade.
You do see why I did not come right out and voice my suspicion of Fade or why I question him regarding why he made the statements he made, right Cyan?
Here, I come out and question points he was making about Aram. Not only that I also comment on a very odd paragraph Fade made and I still stand by it. Fade basically says he is having a hard time digesting the data in this game. Almost as if he wants to build an excuse for why he is not contributing more to the game. I said this was an “unmade” like statement and it is.
Once again Cyan, how could you so completely miss the real point I was making in this post? Especially when I made no effort to hide this one.


Saying 'I also think someone else is suspicious and it's a surprise to me means absolutely nothing'. All that does is gives you room later to make a post exactly like this one, where you try to unduly throw suspicion on someone of your choice, without having to back this up with anything. If anything, Fade's statement that he can't get his head around this game is synonymous with sentiments echoed by at least 5 players in this thread. Yet, I don't see you casting suspicion on anyone else for this. I fail to see the distinction here. I also find it interesting that you accuse him of making a statement to give himself an excuse for something later, since it seems that this is exactly what you have done here.

**It maybe synonymous with other players but it is something I had not heard from fade before. When I hear one of the best players I know say, “this is too much for me to figure out” a flag goes up for me. I said so. I had also said that I was suspicious of Fade several times before that. One thing that did stick out for me after I made that initial post was Graces reaction to it. His, wow, I missed that at first but hey you’re right that looks strange post stakes me like some of the posts Alsea made in response to post I made after I claimed and explained why I voted for DYH.



Quote:
There are two things that have kept me from voting for Cyan a long time ago. First, the fact that Axe confirmed part of Cyan’s claim and second, and I do not mean to be degrading here, but the fact I have seen Cyan, so many times in the past, be so complete wrong about a player or situation that it is possible that his fixation on me this game could easily just be another example of that.
These two Axe and Cyan are very interesting. I do find both of them to be suspicious and of the two I think it is Axe who I am most interested in analyzing.

I hope that answers your questions. If not, say so and I will try again.
Back to the PBPA response.

EWP: Cyan, you did see my posts responding to the first parts of your PBPA right? I assure you I will continue to do so until I am done. That is unless you succeed in getting the others to vote for me before I get the chance.

Oh and by the way Cyan, this is the second time you have ignored answering my questions regarding your PBPA.

If you are having too difficult a time coming up with answers just say so and I will direct my questions to the rest of the players in general to speculate on what you meant or misinterpreted or simply missed.


I love this particular bit. What does me being wrong allot in the past(which is a huge ad home, by the way), have to do with me attacking you now? A person can be wrong regardless of their alignment. And again, I intentionally hadn't responded to your responses yet, which I flatly stated.

Also telling, IMO, is that he directs all of this towards me, but then at the ends takes a pot shot at Axelrod. If you're so suspicious of Axel, why haven't you expressed this earlier today? You tried to goad him for awhile yesterday, while conveniently completely ignoring the building cast against at seal. Yet today, you had nothing to say. Until now anyway. Again, to me, this just comes across as you wanting to change the subject.

**This is a fair point. I regretted that swipe at you right after I posted it. It did not need to be posted. I am sorry I said it and I apologize Cyan.

The reason I did not go after Axe earlier was because of his role claim. If he was John Conner, then I felt there was a good possibility that he had a role that was proton and possibly significant. His playing in a reserved manner or in a manner that was different then what I had seen from him could very well have been intentional and designed to keep him alive.
By posting only occasional suspicions when I saw them I allowed any scum that might be waiting for an opening to try to get a band wagon going. No one did though. It also worked to try to get axe to react to see if the suspicious action I saw was actually what I thought it was.

***********************************************************************



Post 3124

This post is Hawkeye's own detail of his voting record. I'm not posting the whole thing here because the post is huge. I've already explained how Hawkeye’s assessment of the at seal wagon is ridiculously misleading. Also misleading/deceptive is how Hawkeye tries to tie my claim to at seals. For one thing, even when Hawkeye made this post, the botched day kill of Axelrod had already happened, meaning that every aspect of my claim(except for my alignment) is now verified. And of course, Hawkeye trying to compare me to a known scum is a nice touch. Lastly, at seal presented his claim as a full claim, then just changed it as he went along. I always maintained that there was information to my role that I was not revealing. Why I didn't reveal it should be obvious, now.

**Cyan, since Axe public ally confirmed your claim I have not questioned any aspect of it other then your alignment. I really don’t doubt that either of you are how you claim to be. I question it you are townies or not. If anyone had been hounding you to reveal any role information that you save been slavishly hiding away for obvious reasons I missed it. I certainly didn’t and I don’t see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of that now.


Quote:
Yes, he did list reasons that if he felt were valid then he should have voted for him. He did not, he let the fact that no one else was paying enough attention to Alsea to be his justification to turn to another target. This removes the responsibility from him for not casting a vote on Alsea while still saying that he thinks at seal maybe a legit candidate.
You are wrong here Cyan, this is not something I did earlier in the game.


This is ridiculous. Just because one person is suspicious of another doesn't mean that they HAVE to vote for them. Did you vote for CP, or fade, or Axel when you were expressing suspicion of them? Clearly you did not. So yes, you absolutely are guilty of the accusation that you make here.

**I had voted for CP earlier in the game. I was never luscious enough of Fade to vote for him and I did not want a vote for Axe to be perceived as trying to deflect attention from addressing you or voting for Alsea.


Quote:
Yes, I wanted more information from you regarding the little information you revealed and I wanted you to go an record as stating a definite piece of general information that possibly would be of help down the road in either confirming or not your claim. You can try to paint this as “fishing” with a negative connotation but I’ll leave that to the rest of the players to decide.


It's great that you try to paint your fishing in some pro-town light. It's still fishing, and was still unnecessary at this juncture.

**That’s your opinion. In my opinion, it was necessary for me. When I want to get more information to clarify a point I ask for it in the manner I think is most effective. I will continue to do so. You might want to make that down in your list of tells because you can try to cast me as fishing again in the future when I do the same thing.


Quote:
This is still early in the game and you have not, to this point amassed the long record of avoiding, refusing and ignoring legitimate cases, questions and situations in the game. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and unnoted to try to lower the level of pressure on you, in the hopes that you would feel more cooperative. This failed. You became even more uncooperative.


Right. Or, like I said, you didn't think the wagon was going anywhere and tried to get away from it. This is fairly consistent with your history in this game. You have made a multitude of shallow attacks on people, quickly abandoning them and looking for someone else when it was obvious that no one was going to go along with you. Conveniently enough, none of said shallow attacks were ever directed at a scum. In the cases of two really obvious scum bandwagons, you completely ignored one, and virtually ignored the other, adding your vote to the wagon at the last minute, when the outcome was inevitable.


**Rewriting history only works if those your are trying to fool can’t go back and read what really happened. Anyone interested in seeing how wrong you are on this can go back and actually read my posts instead or what your interpretation of them is.


Quote:
????
Maybe you should re-read the post. I did not say Justus could be scum. I said that there was a low likelihood that the action Gram was commenting on was a scum tactic, IMO.
It is this type of complete misreading or my posts that makes me question your intentions here Cyan. How can you completely miss so obvious a point?


This is exactly what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye
I don't know, he's always seemed plenty clever whenever I've been in games with him. If the mafia were able to talk to each other prior to the game it could easily have been a collective plan. If it is a mafia ploy there would have to be some other, unknown ability or result that they hope to achieve for this to pay the surviving members benefits. As it is it does not pay well to try this if he were mafia.


Please explain how that is not trying to promote the possibility that Justus could be scum? Gratis said 'he's not clever enough to do this as scum'. You said 'he is plenty clever whenever I've been in games with him'. You went on to further extrapolate about mafia talking prior to the game(something that there is no reason for you to assume would have been possible, since the game started during the day), etc. You are clearly implying that Justus could be scum here, I can't see how you can possibly deny this.

****Ok. Follow me here.
I state that, from my experience with him in prior games, I think Justus is smart.
I state that what Gram was describing “could be possible“, if the mafia could day talk. Something that is very unlikely and that there is no evidence for at that time.
I state that there would rally need to be some other, unknown reason for a mafia player to do what Gram had speculated about Justus doing, because it would be sacrificing a member for a reason we did not know to achieve something that made no sense.
Finally I state that this type of action would not pay if he were mafia.
Please, please tell me how you get that I am saying he is scummy here?



Quote:
?????
This is the second post in a row that you misread.
I said that I thought Justus would be better then a random lynch or a mislynched townie but I did not think that he should be our lynch choice and that we should continue to look for more suspicious targets. I NEVER said that we should not let Ljustus live. I said that if we could not find a more suspicious target then he should be our fall back lynch for the reason Ljustus himself gave for why the town would gain by him being lynched. I even state that the three players I think are the more suspicious, at this point, are Fade, CP and Cyan.


Can you just not read your own posts? You flatly refer to LJustus as a fall-back lynch. That is pretty obviously saying that we should not let him live. You further extrapolate on that by suggesting 3 investigation targets for him. But one of those targets can only be investigated if LJustus dies in the first place. Honestly, I can't get your argument(s) here. Your statements are here, plain as day, for anyone to read.

***A fall back lynch is something that is done only if all other possible avenues have been exhausted. I clearly state that we should pursue other, better targets and exhaust then before we consider looking to lynch Ljustus. I said that clearly in my post and I said so clearly in my response.
AbbyGargoyle is right. Reading is TECH.

Quote:
Players of the game. PLEASE read my post and read cyan’s analysis of it. Is this really what happened or is my post consistent with what I had been saying and pursuing at that point in the game? I had waited a fair period of time to see if Cyan would address the Case Grak presented against him and based on his ignoring that case I voted for him. A vote in agreement with points in the case and to pressure Cyan to address the case. This is pretty self evident.


Quote:
I can understand how Cyan would be unable to catch my meaning here. Axelrod, voted for Ljustus with a single phrase, vote: ljustus. I found the fact that he did not comment or post any other information or reasoning to be very unlike Axelrod. I parodied his conciseness by questioning his reason for voting with an even more concise “why?” question.


My point is that 'Why' should be obvious. LJustus specifically asked for people to vote for him, and said that he would get a free investigation upon his death. Then Axelrod votes him. Again, the 'why' here is ridiculously obvious. Your question here to Axel makes no sense. Of course, if you're scum, then you are pinning someone that you know to not be scum to a specific attack on someone else that you know to not be scum. That makes plenty of sense. So, here, your actions ONLY make sense from a scum perspective.

****Do you REALLY think that, at this point in the game, it was in the interest of the town to lynch a player who had just claimed to be town and that we would get a free investigation from his death? Wouldn’t it be better to keep that free investigation saved for a point when we had a specific good target to maximize the sacrifice of a townie? There was NO compelling reason to not believe Ljustus at that moment and NO compelling reason to lynch him just to use his ability. I wanted to see if Axe had a compelling reason to do this and also to see if he thought Ljustus might be lying.
Again, please read my post. I think it is very clear. Ljustus claimed to have a valuable ability that would be of use to the town. An ability that would come into play when he is lynched. Some players then launched a campaign to do just that and lynch Ljustus for little more then the reason to use that ability even though we really did not have a compelling reason to do that at that time. It is obvious that Ljustus wanted to get a consensus that he should be allowed to hammer himself when the time came to lynch him so he could ensure that there was no misinterpretation of what would happen or what we would receive from his investigation. I commented that I thought Axe’s post worked towards making that happen at that time rather then saving the ability for a much more advantageous moment. This concept of saving an extra investigation for a time that could be possible be selected by the town or at least coached to Ljustus so that we maximized it should have been obvious to a player of Axe’s caliber and I found that also odd.


NONE of this is even remotely 'made clear' in the post in question. Nowhere do you say anything about saving the investigation for later when it's benefit can be 'maximized'. Talk about revisionist history. Besides, the concept that you are saying is 'so obvious' is a logical fallacy, because it is unlikely that a better time to willingly lynch a townie will come up beyond Day 1.

***This is untrue. Day one was now where near being over. There was a definite reason not to lynch him at this moment and to continue the day to look for either a better lynch candidate or to identify a specific target to use the ability on if we were going to fall back to lynching ljustus and to maximize his ability. Ljustus was expressing his desire to be allowed to be the hammering vote on himself when we had done that and it had been decided that we should lynch him and use his ability. The rush to lynch ljustus just to use his ability, at that time, was what I spoke against.
I stand by my post and by my response to it.



Quote:
I found Axe to, again, have posted in a manner that I considered uncharacteristic. Axe is normally a very thorough player and not one to miss an obvious point. It seemed to me that his list of possibilities left off several obvious ones. I questioned that. When I see some players miss obvious points I have to consider it typical. When I see certain players, Axelrod is one of them, miss obvious points it is not typical and thus worth noting.
The real meat of my post was that I summarized my thoughts about Ljustus and why I was voting for Cyan. Interesting, Cyan missed this large and obvious point.


My point is that you accuse Axelrod of leaving off 'possibilities', but those 'possibilities' are so unlikely that it's obvious why he didn't list them. Beyond that, in your own further explanation, you go out of your way to state that any possibilities that you don't list you left off on purpose. So, why is it that you can do this, but Axelrod cannot? This is egregious hypocrisy.

**I never said that I have not done this. I said that in this incidence and in this context, I found that fact that Axe was not more though and did not look at other possibilities in his post to be suspicious. I still do.
I stand by this post and my original one.


And I didn't miss the fact that you further explained your vote on me, it just wasn't worth commenting on.

snap.

Quote:
You are spitting hairs here. You also completely, again ignore the main part of this post. I directly, again, explained why you should respond to the case Grak posted against you and I quoted the post you made where you say you don’t know why you said you would address it. The fact remains that for a great deal of time you ignored the case and when repeatedly asked to do so you did say that you would. You then tried to ignore it again and finally said that you would not. How many times over how many posts and time have you refused to answer the case against you? When you said that you would address it , then refused to do so, how long, how many posts and how much time pasted before you finally did respond?


Not only does this response have NOTHING to do with the post that I made, I fail to see what it has to do with anything at all at this juncture. You have pointed out, time and again, that I said I Would respond to Grakthis' PBPA but then didn't. Congratulations, you got me. I honestly felt like the situation with LJustus should be allowed to play out first. People disagreed, so then I responded. Whatever point you're trying to make here seems to be woefully pointless.

***Wow. This is incredibly weak.
So much so that I will only say look act the actual posts and judge for yourself folks. I stand by my original posts, all of the many that asked for Cyan to address that PBPA and why he refused to. I also stand by my response.



Quote:
Cyan, think about what you are saying here. You have insinuated I am scummy for nearly the entire game. For 80 percent of that time you did not post clear reasons for these insinuations, even though I asked you nearly every time you did it to provide those reasons. Now that you have completed what you, yourself, called a daunting task of doing a PBPA of my then 88 posts. I’m sure it took you a while to compile it. You are trying to use it to prove your point and I am responding with my defense of those points. I have real problems with most of the statements and interpretations you have made regarding my posts and I am including them into my responses. Some of that is in the form of questions to you that you are now openly refusing to answer. You have on at least three occasions urged the group to forgo my response and simply lynch me without reading my rebuttal and here you are openly saying I should stop responding at all.
Sorry, but I will finish this response before the weekend in out and I will also continue to answer any current questions directed to me. Once I am done showing how wrong you are I will then turn to several key points in the game to analyze the posts and to scrutinizing specific players who have come up in my review of the posts you have misrepresented.

By all means continue to try to get me lynched before that happens though.
Good luck.


You have to realize that none of your arguments mean anything to me. In my mind, you are scum. There is a vast amount of evidence to support this, and nothing is going to change my mind on this point. From my perspective, as I have said REPEATEDLY, you are baiting me into this long, drawn out battle in hopes of finding some relatively meaningless point to try and strawman. I already see this happening at certain points in your responses.

****Cyan, think about this. If you had responded to any of the first five times I had asked you to post why you “found something suspicious about that post by HAWKEYE7” but did not say what it was. We might not have had to endure this game long sniping by you or this grueling exchange. I could have explained what I meant at that time. We. Possibly, could have moved on. You did not do this. You deliberately ignored those requests.
If you had responded to my next 10 requests that you say why you thought any of my posts were suspicious but did not offer a specific reason, we might also have avoided this.
If you had responded to any of the near dozen requests for you to respond to Graks’ PBPA of you or to not have backed down and refused to honor your statement that you would answer that PBPA, we could have possibly have avoided this.
This entire situation is a result of your game long stonewalling not me baiting you. I would never had to do it or try to shame you into backing up your words if you had stood up and been accountable at a dozen different points earlier in the game.
don’t cry about the spilled milk when you spilled it.




Quote:
As I have said so many times during this game Cyan, you have no idea why I posted in the manner that I did. I have also stated directly and indirectly that I did it deliberately and for a reason.


Of course you are. And of course, you have made no effort to provide a real explanation for this. Considering that you are a mere couple of votes from lynch, it seems to me that, if you actually are/were town, you would be largely more forthcoming than you are being here.

***A technique is a technique, and if you had not stonewalled all game I probably would not have done it as much or targeted you.