From the same person who once claimed that I continually attack someone with very little evidence against them? If you're going to meta-game, at least get the facts right.

Phew! Just had to put a new PSU in my desktop - always a pain in the arse.....

Just a post to say I'm here really - got RL work to catch up on now ive fixed my poorly 'puter!

Apologies for not giving this my full attention, i will lavish the love on it over the weekend...

What I said was that, when you can't find enough evidence, you create more.
And you went through more than 2 pages of posts argueing that I was wrong in that assertion.....

Which contradicts what you've posted above ...

I don't see the contradiction.
You attack once you feel you have a strong case.
The target defends their actions.
You continue to push, creating new "evidence" along the way, once your initial case is proved not as cut-&-dried as you present it.

I would invite people to re-read you exchange with Vitek.
You accuse him of:
1, A panicked defense.
2, Attempting to dismiss accusations as nonsense.
3, Unable to present a good counter arguement.
At least 2 of these are subjective.
He made a defense. It is a stretch to state that it is panicked.
This 'present my opinion as fact & damn anyone who disagrees' is something I mayself see as very scummy.
You insist that your opinion is the only one that matters & that anyone who has other ideas better keep quiet or be labeled scum & hounded forever.

You also suggest that Stoic is scum for defending Vitek.

So far, I have seen nothing that convinces me that Vitek is scum.
If he is not, why is it scummy to defend him?

Please point out where I have said that.

Oh, come on, this is only a few posts up, but I'll copy and paste for your benefit.

"Again, not true. I stated that Stoicsentry's post could have been perceived as scummy (i.e. sticking up for you), but complimented him on the fact that he was presenting his own theories." - this was, of course, directed at Vitek.

Didn't we have this same argument in Mafia #4? I wonder who turned out to be scum in that game ...

The problem, I believe, is that you're calling NMillar scummy for what prior meta evidence would have us believe is in fact his Town style. I knew there was something off about him in Game #9 for the time I was playing. :)

Mind you, this exchange makes me realise that I dislike using metagaming as evidence for or against someone - I'm beginning to get the impression you can get more information out of a player's habits if you don't have to tell them what they are...

Anyway - yes, needing to post more, I've been far too quiet (as sodding usual). I'd like to give a list of reads, but trying to do all of them at once would probably lead to my usual problem of having to start again every time I've finished due to new information appearing, so I'll have another look at the major arguments. If anyone would like to throw in a suggestion for me to prioritise a read on, do tell.

For the moment I'll add the obvious overview of a read from Damuna's posts thus far - What the devil are you playing at? :P

I asked you why would 2 scums vote for SPF in 5 minute span while he had no votes on him. Stoicsentry asked you similar thing.
I asked how is voting for him indicative of alignement. You said mafia have info and co-ordiante actions. I asked what we could possibly try to co-ordinate.
I asked how did you pick me as mafia for proding when your case was non-existent before.
I asked why you said my posts "could be percieved as scummy". Did you not percieve them as scummy yourself?
I asked where is my panicked defense.
You said I presented no arguments of my own against any other players and I asked what does it have to do with anything. And if you did something like that if it's wrong for me not to do it. i admit it was mostly rhetorical question, though.

Is it enough?

Sorry, screwed that one compeletely. It was meant to be, "claims it's non-existent case and wonder why I dismissed it after responding to it."
You said pretty non-existent, not weak.

Not true. At first you said this, while avoiding to respond to it at all, although as you pointed out you complimented him for posting them. Yesterday you said you find his post scummy but he is off the hook because he presented theories unlike me.

Your actions say this.
The use of very subjective language while insisting that everything is fact based.
You then start to attack anyone who disagrees with you.
This very discussion is a suitable example.

You said that it "could be read as sticking up for his scumbuddy."
How could he have a scumbuddy if he was not scum?

Actually it was game 6.
And I don't believe either of us was scum that game.

Actually I was drawing a contrast between his normal Town Inquisitor style & his style in game 9 (where he was scum).
I concluded that his current style is much closer to game 9.

Not quite. I focus on people I believe are scummy and usually do not relent until my target is lynched. I present my reasoning (however flawed that may be), and it's up to others to decide whether that's enough to cast a vote or not. It has been a very successful method for me in previous games.

Since I believe at this stage that Vitek is scum, he is of course going to have at least one scum-buddy. Have you considered the possibility that I might be right?

Fair enough, but that argument was based on events in Game 4 (where my current method of playing was first introduces), and you were in fact scum there!

Actually, I was much quieter at the start of Game 9 than I normally am. I don't think my behaviour in that game was much different from previous games - how else would I have survived till the end?

I believe we are talking about Stoic here, NOT Vitek.
You say that you don't see Stoic as scummy, but also suggest he might have a scumbuddy.

I see a blatant contradiction.

I'll also just quote what you said to Vitek in post 295:
"You could have dismissed my accusations without resorting to coming up with a detailed response to each individual point. The fact that you did that, seems very defensive to me."

No, you're misunderstanding.

I believe Vitek is scum.

I pointed out to Stoicsentry that his post could be perceived as sticking up for his scum-buddy (i.e. Stoicsentry's post could be perceived as linking the two together as scum-buddies).

And the only way that works is if Stoic is also scum.

This is my 2nd attempt at posting this.
First one seems to have been eaten.
I hope it doesn't suddenly appear as an edit....

As much as I'm leaning towards siding with you, Rod, and I agree that nmillar is playing weirdly and jumping on a ridiculously weak case, I personally think you're pushing a contradiction that isn't there. He was pointing out that stoic's actions could mark him as scummy, but his good post and theorizing made it unlikely for now.