A Gentleman's Game of Guile, Subterfuge, and Intrigue (Fin)

[AurorusVox]

Incoming Collection of Most Observant Utterances

I have included any points that struck me about any dear gentlemen who are unfortunately no longer with us to give an idea of where I would have stood had I been fortunate enough to have been in attendance yesterday. Much of it can probably be skimmed over since it relates to early play, but will be posted for later reference if desired. I've prefaced the most important elements with asterixes.

Apok

#68 - this gentleman seems somewhat like a rapscallion for pushing Imaginality when his opinion regarding TS as expressed around here was a fair one.

Caboose

#98 - why this gentleman would spoil his ballot to leave the eclectic democratic process is something I will never understand - nor why he would not position himself against any other scoundrel is beyond me. Doing so completely reduces the pressure and velocity that may have built up earlier in the game.

SC

reads as a true gentleman for #107

**

Imaginality

strikes me strongly as having gentlemanly concerns at his heart for his interrogations (#114 especially gave me such a feeling in my stomachregions)

*** I very much like the pressure on that dastard

Krob

, and he seems to be flailing under very little pressure, as has been mentioned by a number of players.
This slightly alters my opinion that Apok is a rapscallion, as he was one of the gentleman who contributed to this pressure.

*

TS

reads as a scoundrel through his posting, and

Sir Hoppster's

concerns in this matter seem to me to be genuine.

SC

betrays my confidence in him a little for #151; his reasoning seems an excessively poor one for a shift in support.

Apok

as above - moreso since Vezok did enter into vocal conflict with Kr0b, the absence of which was Apok's criticism.

Caboose

nullifies my read of himself as a scoundrel for his #157.

*

kr0b

reinforces the low opinion I hold of him with #202.

*

Vezok

comes out worse for wear from his debates with TS; and indeed,

Hoppster

begins to look less genuine with his #208. I feel that this could unfortunately be coloured by a veracious isolated interest in TS (I know how difficult that can be to circumvent) but TS's "how have I hidden in the shadows" post is not fluff, but conversely, a rebuttal.
That said,

Hoppster's

#213 makes it clearer what his problem is, and his criticism now makes sense.

*** Post #225 by

Hoppster

is eyebrow raising. He spoils his ballot placed upon TS and then proceeds to submit his own name for ruination? The reason that he seems to offer is that the TS wagon might decrease velocity should he ever reach the brink of death? What-ho? I also find the question he asks disturbing - why need he ask "If I flip scum...?" if it's never going to happen?

#234 seems to show

Hoppster

pressuring other people only once his isolated focus has been commented upon.

TL

&

inHim

have been making their way through the conference rather silently. Many people commented on this and I am pleased.

*

Inhim's

#252 is somewhat concerning, depending on the alignments of certain other gentlemen (which, under the correct circumstances, could point to a scoundrel acknowledging a confluct between gentlemen?), but on the other hand, I find reason to smile when reading his #253 and #254 so I am willing to see what else this gentleman has to offer.

Indeed, #255 is very suspect by

TS

.

Feysal

went on to call this action most gentlemanly which surprises me.

*

Caboose

#269 looks like a scoundrel using the "burden of proof" soundbyte as a tactic allowing him to weasel out of commenting on the TS carriage...

#333

is most clearly an accidental revelation of TS' identity. I'd bet my top hat on it.

***

Hoppster's

#358 strikes me as a VERY gentlemanly request. If he was a rapscallion, he could have simply leant on the approaching deadline to have TS lynched very easily. He is now out and away holds my strongest confidence as a true gentleman.

RE: TS being involved in a most unfortunate scandal, and my top hat bet. Oh dear. I am glad that no one was around to take me at my word!

RE: 2 murders -- this is indeed a troublesome turn of events. I can see the possibility of one of those murders being the fault of a serial madman, or a maverick gun owner, and so I will wait and see what the rest of the conference offers in the way of clues and evidence.

***

Lord_hur

#417 - I react badly to his Hoppster ballot. It seems an easy place for a scoundrel to rally around, based on Hoppster leading a the unfortunate erroneous vengeance on TS, and lord_hur's campaign truly looks like one placed for the sake of ease.
As a sidenote,

ToastyToasts

is not quite so heinous since he mentions all players in his summary.

Lord_Hur

#433 also sounds badly in my soul. "How could anyone else call my case weak?!" - is this a challenge to anyone who might "dare" question him?

Lord_hur

#454 - you say that Sir Hoppster's Vezo ballot switch was intended as a misguided trap - what then do you make of him saying that it was in fact not a gambit, in that case?

---

Too lengthy; did not peruse;

Gentlemanly

+++++ Sir Hoppster
++ imaginality
+ Feysal

Persisting with no extreme prejudice in either direction

Reya Cookiebringer (Apokalyptika)
vezokpiraka
DemonHybrid (GMan)

Scoundrels

- inHimshallibe
-- ToastyToast (kr0b)
----- lord_hur (Caboose)

---

Vote: lord_hur

[ToastyToast]

@AV: I find it interesting that you find my list less scummy than lord_hur's case, and yet I am still on your scum list. Not to mention the fact that both inhimshallibe and lord_hur are on my scum list, the only difference being that I find Hoppster to be among them. Do you doubt that my suspicions are genuine?

[Wraith]

Votecount 2.1

Sir Hoppster

(3)

:

ToastyToast, lord_hur, vezokpiraka

lord_hur

(2)

:

Sir Hoppster, Aurorus Vox, PhD

vezokpiraka

(0)

:

inHimshallibe

Not Voting

(5)

:

Reya Cookiebringer, Feysal, DemonHybrid, inHimshallibe, imaginality

With 10 alive it takes

6

to lynch the knave.

Night falls on

June 7, 2011

[AurorusVox]

Dear sir, your roguishness is more down to the scandal of your predecessor's play than anything you yourself have done since your arrival. Indeed, I would warrant that you have actually lowered the distaste I felt for your slot.

Your suspicions may well be genuine; only time shall tell. I do not declare that my listed suspicions are irrefutable and infallible, nor do they truly take any potential connections into account. These more subtle considerations are reserved for my future endeavours. I had simply wanted to give a very basic - one might say, surface - overview of my feelings about the attendees.

[lord_hur]

I am pleased to meet you, Sir AurorusVox. Please let me react to your vote :

*

Caboose

#269 looks like a scoundrel using the "burden of proof" soundbyte as a tactic allowing him to weasel out of commenting on the TS carriage...

This one positively baffles me. My esteemed predecessor said he did not at all believe in the case aginst Sir Twistedspoon, what else do you want as a comment? When you have zero doubts about someone, a true gentleman should never cast a ballot on this person unless he is convinced otherwise, and since he does not believe there is a case at all, the incrimating proof must come from someone who thinks he has it. This is only logic, and all judiciary systems in the world's democracies are based on this.

***

Lord_hur

#417 - I react badly to his Hoppster ballot. It seems an easy place for a scoundrel to rally around, based on Hoppster leading a the unfortunate erroneous vengeance on TS, and lord_hur's campaign truly looks like one placed for the sake of ease.
As a sidenote,

ToastyToasts

is not quite so heinous since he mentions all players in his summary.

This is, objectively, sound reasoning as you apparently think Sir Hoppster is the most gentlemanly of us. I have indeed used this reasoning in the past. I'd like to point out, though, that it made me vote for an innocent (the very ladylike, and intelligent, farside22) in my last game, in a situation that was very comparable to ours if Sir Hoppster is indeed a gentleman.

Lord_Hur

#433 also sounds badly in my soul. "How could anyone else call my case weak?!" - is this a challenge to anyone who might "dare" question him?

I was referring to votes like imaginality's hammer on Sir Twistedspoon, that apparently wasn't criticized by others than me despite its utter lack of reasoning. That someone would consider my case with contempt without questioning the many other votes in these minutes who were cast without any reason, or one reason that is rather indicative of bad play, strike me as quite unfair.

You can criticize my reasons, of course. But saying I have less than one, so effectively none, is deeply insulting to my efforts, and definitely matter for a gentlemanly duel.

Lord_hur

#454 - you say that Sir Hoppster's Vezo ballot switch was intended as a misguided trap - what then do you make of him saying that it was in fact not a gambit, in that case?

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Overall, I am quite pleased by your efforts, Sir AurorusVox. Just be aware that the one downside of this type of analysis is that it focuses your attention on the one most active, while those that are less so are able to, as they say, fly under the radar.

[AurorusVox]

This one positively baffles me.

He didn't comment on it until pressed further. He used the fact that burden of proof is on the one making the case to excuse this fact, when a simple comment would have sufficed. He maintained a fencesitting position through this tactic until it was commented on and disallowed.

I was referring to votes like imaginality's hammer on Sir Twistedspoon, that apparently wasn't criticized by others than me despite its utter lack of reasoning. That someone would consider my case with contempt without questioning the many other votes in these minutes who were cast without any reason, or one reason that is rather indicative of bad play, strike me as quite unfair.

I see - in this case you are criticising hypocrisy; not the direct attacks on your own votes. Consider this matter settled.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

[DemonHybrid]

Post coming after work. I've had a crazy weekend, I'm sorry.

[DemonHybrid]

V/LA until 10:00 PM today, EDT

[lord_hur]

This one positively baffles me.

He didn't comment on it until pressed further. He used the fact that burden of proof is on the one making the case to excuse this fact, when a simple comment would have sufficed. He maintained a fencesitting position through this tactic until it was commented on and disallowed.

Sorry, but I think you are in the wrong. There was no fencesitting. He clearly said in his message #5 that he did not see any value in Sir Hoppster's attack, and this same #5 is the first time he is asked about his opinion on the case. Personally, I would not comment on a case I do not believe in, unless to attack its author (if there is reason to), particularly if I were making a case of my own (like Sir Caboose). I actually find Sir Hoppster particularly rude for basically saying "your case is crap, comment on mine since it's the best ever". That he received a bashing answer serves him perfectly.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

You were right. As you asked for what I would derive from the fact that I was wrong about it :
- from your point of view, I may have been lying to cover Sir V. Piraka (but that would be very stupid, since anyone could verify it at any time) ;
- from both yours and mine, Sir inHimshallibe could be guilty of putting too much trust in my affirmation, which can be viewed as alignment knowledge.

[ToastyToast]

^^WIFOM

[lord_hur]

^^WIFOM

Sigh... where?

[Feysal]

I am, once more, up to date on recent developments. I had guessed AurorusVox had joined the lodge from observing his change of avatar in another game, and just now I confirmed this by reading the posts from the weekend. I am pleased with his entry, and this matches nicely with the opinion I once held for kpaca before his attendance record prompted his substitution.

I have taken a look at Sir Hoppster's playstyle as anti-town, particularly whether he showed tendency to tunnel. Of his two non-newcomer games as mafia, Wrestlemania appears to be almost useless as meta due to the restrictions on posts in that game, however there was no tunneling present, as his focus and votes shifted often. There Will Be Bloodshed was somewhat more informative in that it contained an episode comparable to this game, where Sir Hoppster relentlessly pushed for the death of a town player, however this happened in LYLO where he did not need to be concerned about the fallout. My conclusion is that if his tunneling on Twistedspoon was mafia motivated, this would be a first for him. Given that I've met few players bold enough to aggressively attack town, and Sir Hoppster has not displayed this behavior in the past, I find it more likely that his attack on Twistedspoon was simply misguided.

Somehow I had thought that Sir Hoppster's request for an extension had come after the moderator had offered the chance, but I apparently confused this with another game. That Sir Hoppster would ask for an extension of his own accord, unprompted, indeed speaks well for him.

While I'm on the subject, Lord Hur's assertion that it would be suspicious to believe a miller claim after the claimant had been hammered, even if this had been accurate, is something I disagree with. Had I been present at the time, I would've believed it, since I do not see any merit in lying about such a thing when your true identity is moments away from being revealed.

You can read into it if you want, but I would have voted kr0b yesterday (apologize for the bit of WIFOM).

Fair enough. On a side note, I'm not a believer in the Amished tell after seeing it fail rather spectacularly, so I can overlook the WIFOM.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry, but I think you are in the wrong. There was no fencesitting. He clearly said in his message #5 that he did not see any value in Sir Hoppster's attack, and this same #5 is the first time he is asked about his opinion on the case. Personally, I would not comment on a case I do not believe in, unless to attack its author (if there is reason to), particularly if I were making a case of my own (like Sir Caboose).

My good sir, surely you can see the difference between voicing a basic opinion on a case, and actually expressing one's feelings about it? This much should have been clear from Sir Hoppster's insistence - "why does it have no merit?" - in pursuing the matter. To simply dismiss a case but to not reveal why one would do so - 'tis most rougish, I dare say. To then refuse when asked explicitly and directly, to my mind, reveals your predecessor's true cowardice and your slot's innate murderous streak.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

You were right. As you asked for what I would derive from the fact that I was wrong about it :
- from your point of view, I may have been lying to cover Sir V. Piraka (but that would be very stupid, since anyone could verify it at any time) ;
- from both yours and mine, Sir inHimshallibe could be guilty of putting too much trust in my affirmation, which can be viewed as alignment knowledge.

Do you feel Sir inOneoneshallbe's interest in your doubts about his line of thinking to be disproportionate to the interest he has in his line of thinking? To put the same in a different way, he had allegedly just found a line of enquiry that would lead him to catch an uncouth rapscallion redhanded in the act of most unpleasant trickery and misdirection; and you, sir, had expressed a means to undo his hard work. Would he not then be most intrigued as to what you may possibly have to say? Let us not forget that you yourself were the one who expressed a "burning" desire to speak up. Should there be a trap around, I do not wonder if it is you who are laying it.

---

But enough of that balderdash. My main reason for asking was because you, sir, find Sir Hoppster to be a most probable candidate for a rapscallious vagabond. Thusly, I had to assume that you were using the word "trap" in its most menacing and malevolent meaning - a trap for the poor, innocent TS to fall into and suffer a fate most dreadful, worked at by a Deus Ex Machina to further his ends of lodge-domination. At first I was interested in whether or not the change in view of this noted ballot would garner any change in view of Sir Hoppster. But I have since realised, that a more pertinent question lies at the heart of this issue. Presumably, if Sir Hoppster is thought by you to be receiving his entertainment from killing off the guests of this most exhilarating soiree, then his own comments on the matter would hold no water for you? Your response could have been as simple as "the man is a liar and a beast, he eats his food with a spoon and I see no reason to listen to the misguiding words he most garrulously spouts forth!" And yet you admit your wrongdoings, acknowledge the lack of a link (that to my mind does not exist irregardless!) between you and Sir V. Zo, and deflect upon Sir inOne. You do not mention Sir Hoppster at all, beyond accepting the truthfullness of his intentions as expressed by his own good self. Sir, I find this to be most unnerving, and I hope that my own case of waterfall words has not obscured the cold, hard core of my concerns herein.

Too lengthy; did not peruse

- You find Sir Hoppster to be a most unsavoury rogue
- You claim he has laid out a hunter's trap
- He claims it was no such thing
- You immediately accept his explanation

Sir, I find this most unsatisfying.

[ToastyToast]

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

You were right. As you asked for what I would derive from the fact that I was wrong about it :
- from your point of view, I may have been lying to cover Sir V. Piraka (but that would be very stupid, since anyone could verify it at any time) ;
- from both yours and mine, Sir inHimshallibe could be guilty of putting too much trust in my affirmation, which can be viewed as alignment knowledge.

Maybe WIFOM isn't the right term for it, I apologize for not explaining. I don't like the whole "Well, if I were you" approach. Also, the part in parentheses, with your assumption that its easily verifiable and that such a claim is stupid.

So some things I've noticed about lord_hur. I find him to be aggresive in his defense, and not in a positive way. COmes off as frustrated, which I don't think town would be in his situation. Also, the information of lord_hur about inHimshallibe is odd. Are you voicing a suspision? Perhaps some light distancing by someone whose facing a lynch? Same could be said for vezok, but I actually agree with that now.

Unvote:Vote:lord_hur

. Hoppster has put an effort in making his D1 actions understandable from a town perspective, lord_hur has not given much thought to caboose. In other words, the two are on my scum-list still, but Hoppster has gone farther up. In order its now lord_hur-Hoppster-inHimshallibe

[AurorusVox]

If you will permit me a moment of non-interrogative conversation, I would like to bring to your attention my true gentlemanly nature by sharing a set of images that I had commissioned many moons ago for use amongst a different gathering of people;



I dare say that if I could manoeuvre my hand with artistic flair and were not so fond of my bright lemonesque persona, I would sign my wage-slips and autographs with this striking resemblance.

[lord_hur]

Do you feel Sir inOneoneshallbe's interest in your doubts about his line of thinking to be disproportionate to the interest he has in his line of thinking? To put the same in a different way, he had allegedly just found a line of enquiry that would lead him to catch an uncouth rapscallion redhanded in the act of most unpleasant trickery and misdirection; and you, sir, had expressed a means to undo his hard work. Would he not then be most intrigued as to what you may possibly have to say? Let us not forget that you yourself were the one who expressed a "burning" desire to speak up. Should there be a trap around, I do not wonder if it is you who are laying it.

---

But enough of that balderdash. My main reason for asking was because you, sir, find Sir Hoppster to be a most probable candidate for a rapscallious vagabond. Thusly, I had to assume that you were using the word "trap" in its most menacing and malevolent meaning - a trap for the poor, innocent TS to fall into and suffer a fate most dreadful, worked at by a Deus Ex Machina to further his ends of lodge-domination. At first I was interested in whether or not the change in view of this noted ballot would garner any change in view of Sir Hoppster. But I have since realised, that a more pertinent question lies at the heart of this issue. Presumably, if Sir Hoppster is thought by you to be receiving his entertainment from killing off the guests of this most exhilarating soiree, then his own comments on the matter would hold no water for you? Your response could have been as simple as "the man is a liar and a beast, he eats his food with a spoon and I see no reason to listen to the misguiding words he most garrulously spouts forth!" And yet you admit your wrongdoings, acknowledge the lack of a link (that to my mind does not exist irregardless!) between you and Sir V. Zo, and deflect upon Sir inOne. You do not mention Sir Hoppster at all, beyond accepting the truthfullness of his intentions as expressed by his own good self. Sir, I find this to be most unnerving, and I hope that my own case of waterfall words has not obscured the cold, hard core of my concerns herein.

Too lengthy; did not peruse

- You find Sir Hoppster to be a most unsavoury rogue
- You claim he has laid out a hunter's trap
- He claims it was no such thing
- You immediately accept his explanation

Sir, I find this most unsatisfying.

That... thing gave me quite a headache. Sorry, but I prefer clearer bullet-points :
- I never said I was sure that Sir Hoppster is an imposter (I even said so in my case's message). If I had to use a scale, I would say he is at about 75%. Much to my dismay, he is still the highest, so I cast a ballot, because true gentlemen have to voice their doubts for the case to advance ;
- I have personally used traps as a gentleman (on at least two occasions in my last game), so, bluntly, cut the "evil" stuff. I'm beginning to think you're trying to play on emotions, which is usually done by rogues.
- Why would he lie about that, even if he is an imposter? Traps are a perfectly valid strategy for both sides. It only serves to provoke reactions that would not have happened. I would agree with you if it was to cover anything incriminating, but it is clearly not the case.

Your comment is equally bad about my answer on Sir inHimshallibe. You do not address at all what I have said. I could have been covering Sir V. Piraka, so he should have verified my deduction's credibility. He did not. It could be oversight (you can't expect town to verify *everything*), or it could be alignment knowledge. Basic logic, nothing else. It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

[vezokpiraka]

I find lord_hur scummier than AV in this argument.

[AurorusVox]

That... thing gave me quite a headache. Sorry, but I prefer clearer bullet-points :

Indeed these linguistic forays can be quite the mind-number.

- I never said I was sure that Sir Hoppster is an imposter (I even said so in my case's message). If I had to use a scale, I would say he is at about 75%. Much to my dismay, he is still the highest, so I cast a ballot, because true gentlemen have to voice their doubts for the case to advance ;

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

- I have personally used traps as a gentleman (on at least two occasions in my last game), so, bluntly, cut the "evil" stuff. I'm beginning to think you're trying to play on emotions, which is usually done by rogues.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

- Why would he lie about that, even if he is an imposter? Traps are a perfectly valid strategy for both sides. It only serves to provoke reactions that would not have happened. I would agree with you if it was to cover anything incriminating, but it is clearly not the case.

Trappings may well be perfectly viable for rogues and gentlemen alike. However they must, by definition, be to different ends. A gentleman's trap is intended to catch a rapscallion in the act of most heinous subterfuge; for a vagabond, his trap cannot aimed as such, for he would be catching his own chums. A vagabond's trap must be made with the intent of besmirching a true gentleman's name and honour. Should you be suspicious of Sir Hoppster, you would doubtless of seized upon this latter possibility; or perhaps theorised about a different reason for his quick ballot-shift - distancing, perhaps, or testing the proverbial waters of a Vezo wagon before being drawn inevitably back to TS. The fact you dismiss the scoundrel-motivation behind such shenanigans is also disconcerting.

Your comment is equally bad about my answer on Sir inHimshallibe. You do not address at all what I have said. I could have been covering Sir V. Piraka, so he should have verified my deduction's credibility. He did not. It could be oversight (you can't expect town to verify *everything*), or it could be alignment knowledge. Basic logic, nothing else. It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

Are you suggesting that you ought to suspect him more; or that your lacking suspicions do not allow you to attempt to trap him?
My point about Sir inOneshallonebe is that you claim he may have alignment information at work in his considerations; but I claim that his eagerness to hear your opinion is understandable due to the circumstances surrounding his request. I was asking if you agree with this assessment or not, but I see that I needed to clarify my rampant tongue somewhat.

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

What is this uncouth speech?! I am shocked and appalled at your use of the scoundrel's vernacular.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

[inHimshallibe]

It is my grand pleasure that Sir Vox should join us. I had business matters over the weekend, and expect a full day today, though I would be remiss if 'twere come to pass that I could not share my thoughts in the passing hours.

[lord_hur]

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

Preposterous. There is no innocence, only degrees of suspicion. In other words, I suspect everyone that has not been proved to be a gentleman. That does not mean I will go and question everything they say, or I would not be able to carry out any investigation, since I could not base any reasoning on anything. I only question affirmations that imposters would have a motivation in altering.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

Yes, he did use this trap to obtain Sir Twistedspoon's death. There is, in my opinion, a 25% chance he did it as an honest mistake, and a 75% chance he did it with ill intent. What is your point?

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

There was nothing fun, or light-hearted there. You depicted something that is not inherently scummy, as scummy. This is deceit, lying if you prefer, meant to present your... case... in a more favorable light, and to depreive me of the means of my defense.

Trappings may well be perfectly viable for rogues and gentlemen alike. However they must, by definition, be to different ends. A gentleman's trap is intended to catch a rapscallion in the act of most heinous subterfuge; for a vagabond, his trap cannot aimed as such, for he would be catching his own chums. A vagabond's trap must be made with the intent of besmirching a true gentleman's name and honour. Should you be suspicious of Sir Hoppster, you would doubtless of seized upon this latter possibility; or perhaps theorised about a different reason for his quick ballot-shift - distancing, perhaps, or testing the proverbial waters of a Vezo wagon before being drawn inevitably back to TS. The fact you dismiss the scoundrel-motivation behind such shenanigans is also disconcerting.

Again, I viewed the ballot-switching as a trap. Maybe if I did not view it as such, I would have thought about something else, but it is not the case.

Are you suggesting that you ought to suspect him more; or that your lacking suspicions do not allow you to attempt to trap him?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

My point about Sir inOneshallonebe is that you claim he may have alignment information at work in his considerations; but I claim that his eagerness to hear your opinion is understandable due to the circumstances surrounding his request. I was asking if you agree with this assessment or not, but I see that I needed to clarify my rampant tongue somewhat.

Asking my opinion is understandable. But the argument was on whether or not he should accept my answer this fast.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

- I suggest you refer to the nearest encyclopedia : appeal to emotion rarely appeals to any emotion in particular. But you saw immediately what I meant : that you depicted something as dastardly (while it is not so), while linking me to it, and distancing yourself from it (so I appear as evil, and you as good). It is not logic, thus it does not stand well with me.
- This is very hard to answer. It is like you are scraping at everything you can find, regardless of the value of the argument. This is an attitude typically associated with malevolent intent, but in some circumstances, I saw well-intended people using this tactic (much to my dismay, as for lying). So, I will reserve my judgement for now. I need to see more of your interventions, and to reread your predecessor's messages in this light.

[lord_hur]

While I'm on the subject, Lord Hur's assertion that it would be suspicious to believe a miller claim after the claimant had been hammered, even if this had been accurate, is something I disagree with. Had I been present at the time, I would've believed it, since I do not see any merit in lying about such a thing when your true identity is moments away from being revealed.

This is true for gentlemen, not for imposters. I have seen imposters lie to the very end, especially when those lies can benefit their partners (to create a link with a gentleman, for example).

[lord_hur]

Maybe WIFOM isn't the right term for it, I apologize for not explaining. I don't like the whole "Well, if I were you" approach. Also, the part in parentheses, with your assumption that its easily verifiable and that such a claim is stupid.

It was what was asked from me. Nice voting me for answering questions.

So some things I've noticed about lord_hur. I find him to be aggresive in his defense, and not in a positive way. COmes off as frustrated, which I don't think town would be in his situation. Also, the information of lord_hur about inHimshallibe is odd. Are you voicing a suspision? Perhaps some light distancing by someone whose facing a lynch? Same could be said for vezok, but I actually agree with that now.

I am completely and utterly frustrated that people would not see these attacks against me as utterly specious. And about inHimshallibe, again, I was answering a question. Out of duty, certainly not out of sympathy.

By the way, I am dropping flavor completely as of now, because I am not having fun.

[AurorusVox]

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

Preposterous. There is no innocence, only degrees of suspicion. In other words, I suspect everyone that has not been proved to be a gentleman. That does not mean I will go and question everything they say, or I would not be able to carry out any investigation, since I could not base any reasoning on anything. I only question affirmations that imposters would have a motivation in altering.

Now my dear sir,

this

is misrepping (or perhaps strawmanning, I have never entirely understood that term but I believe it may be pertinent here). I did not say that you should question everything that every person should say; I merely indicate that you have good reason to question the words of your top suspect. I have also demonstrated ample motivation for scum to lay down a trap and not wish it to be thought of as such.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

Yes, he did use this trap to obtain Sir Twistedspoon's death. There is, in my opinion, a 25% chance he did it as an honest mistake, and a 75% chance he did it with ill intent. What is your point?

Please recall that this whole argument is based on Sir Hoppster saying that he did

not

vote Duke Vezo as a trap. My initial qualm is that you believed him when he said he was not trapping despite finding him suspicious, and now here, you are once again calling it a trap. My head is positively in a spin.

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

There was nothing fun, or light-hearted there. You depicted something that is not inherently scummy, as scummy. This is deceit, lying if you prefer, meant to present your... case... in a more favorable light, and to depreive me of the means of my defense.

If one should consider my doom-harbinger words as anything more than embellishment of a basic point, then he is free to quake as he sees fit for he is a fool and there is no teaching him. The point itself alone still stands as you being involved in a rougish act, beyond any "terrifying" language I employed: put plainly, you find Sir H suspect, yet found no reason to doubt his word of honour. With him as your top suspect, you should have realised the potential for suspicious intent in his actions (as you claim you do - at the rate of 75%), and it logically follows that you should then see the potential for misdirection in his voiced account of that action, which contradicts your own beliefs. If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

- I suggest you refer to the nearest encyclopedia : appeal to emotion rarely appeals to any emotion in particular. But you saw immediately what I meant : that you depicted something as dastardly (while it is not so), while linking me to it, and distancing yourself from it (so I appear as evil, and you as good). It is not logic, thus it does not stand well with me.

[/quote]
I believe that the act that I depicted was dastardly. I have expressed why that is, and how you have interacted in it. Moreover, I cannot be said to distance myself from something when it was not I who engaged in the activity in the first place.

- This is very hard to answer. It is like you are scraping at everything you can find, regardless of the value of the argument. This is an attitude typically associated with malevolent intent, but in some circumstances, I saw well-intended people using this tactic (much to my dismay, as for lying). So, I will reserve my judgement for now. I need to see more of your interventions, and to reread your predecessor's messages in this light.

[/quote]
I do not feel I am scraping; I feel that there are contradictions and I am pressing at them to see what I can garner from it.

[vezokpiraka]

Can you stop with the walls?

Nobody is reading them except you two.

I siad I think AV is town and lord hur scum.

[lord_hur]

I am no longer answering to AurorusVox's bullshit, he's just repeating himself. If anyone else want me to answer any of his points, please tell me which one, and I will answer it.

My time will be better employed elsewhere, namely at scumhunting.

@vezokpiraka : 1. Why? 2. Why are you not voting for me, then?