Your post #48 :
I answer in mine #57 : you justify your vote on me by saying mine on MGM was motivated by rancor. I demonstrated it was false.
Where is your answer to it ?
Your post #93 :
you unvote and vote Axelrod, saying that screwing up on one's claim for 4 days is normal and should not be doubted. Although this wasn't addressed to me, I disagreed (and still do) in my post #94 and thought (and still do) that no townie would try to let MGM go without some more investigation.
MGM himself admitted he looked fishy at the time (see post #95).
Where is your answer to it ?
Your post #125 :
"voting for Axelrod wasn't worth it quite yet" : why did you then ?
You claim that my arguments against MGM haven't been substantial at all : how have they not ?
You "smell scum looking for an excuse to further a bandwagon" : how are your posts not smelling so ?
"Puzzle has been a bit over-obsessive with suggesting ways for us to kill each other off" : opinion, not justification. How about answering to my plan objectively instead of giving unfounded feelings ?
"Suggestion : ..." : I concurred and claimed. I think it's time for you to claim. Let's see what the others say.
To sum up, I don't see anything concrete to answer in this post, except your suggestion.
Your post #141 :
Here is my answer :
Mastermind of Sin wrote:Ok, I'm going to make a very poor analogy, but I hope it will show my point well enough. Let's say you are playing in a mafia game(mini), and all of a sudden people start voting for a guy because he "has pink elephants in his pants" (not something related to the theme of the game). Would you not attempt to point out why this doesn't make sense and is a bad reason to lynch said person?
- There is a difference between lynching a person and pushing for his claim.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:And if they continued making accusitions and piling on the votes, would you not persist in your "defense" of said person, although you are really more attacking the logic behind the votes on him rather than protecting him.
- You, yourself, admitted flaws in the "knowledge" of MGM that there was a failsafe in your post #48. Why did you want to defend MGM so firmly, then ?
Mastermind of Sin wrote:You have no knowledge of said person's alignment, and you are pro-town.
- Taken from your potential viewpoint : we cannot take this as granted.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:And then if the players that were attacking said victim turned on you for "defending" him, would you not feel that their suspicions were a bit unjustified?
- When you admit that there are flaws in someone's posts and still vehemently defend him, well yes, that doesn't stack up for me.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:I disagreed with the reasoning against Mgm from the start, and have said so. I never attempted to clear Mgm, but simply said that the reasons that were fabricated against him were crap. When his bandwagon kept growing for no apparent reason, I persisted in my attacks, hoping to knock some sense into all of you.
- Once again, post #48, you admitted that his "knowledge" wasn't solid.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:Now, I'm being accused of defending Mgm when I was really only disagreeing with the tactics used to try and lynch him.
- There is a difference between lynching a person and pushing for his claim.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:It's as common of a mafia tactic to use crap logic against someone to build a bandwagon against someone else who attacks said reasoning as it is to defend your scum buddies as persistently as I have "protected" Mgm, who is not my scum buddy, by the simple fact that I am not scum.
- and it's a common Mafia tactic to protect a townie in difficulty, so that :
- if the townie gets lynched later, they'll say : "See, I told you...".
- the townie will feel confident about the guy who defended him and may return the favor, basic psychology.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:I hope that clears up how I feel a bit more for you. That is also why I'm voting for Puzzle. He (and others)used crap logic to build a bandwagon on Mgm, and now that someone has actively opposed his crap, he turns to them in an attempt to build a new bandwagon.
I am a bit pushy on the strategy I believe in, but show me how my logic is crap. I still fail to see a proper argument against it.
Your post #147 :
I hadn't seen before posting mine #148.
Still, the same applies to Axelrod and me. Show how the strategy is bad before trying to extort claims from others, please.
Your post #149 :
See above.
@ Obelix : I was referring about the last man standing thing. I do not share this purpose, but the way mine has been presented is indeed similar to his.