Hatland Mafia

[Revising Ocelot]

My sleep-addled brain is still ing at P-Sleazy's logic. I mean, the point that someone can hide behind lots of fluff text seems sound, but you justify this point by... not reading at all? You say that posting a wall lures people into thinking it's good information, but then you don't read at all... which means you'd ignore possible highly useful text entirely? Because there's a lot of it? Just as a counterpoint, my posts so far have been fairly short but they've also been mostly crap. Very flawed logic.

And then you do a vote by exact wordcount.

Yeah.

##Vote: P-Sleazy

[P-Sleazy]

The vote is more of a "you voted for me for posting too little and accomplishing little to nothing so I'll vote for you for posting a lot and accomplishing about as much as I did" kind of thing.

Brevity isn't a bad thing, which is what people are turning my brevity into. At the very least I accomplished what I set out to do with my brevity, which is to say IC's point about me and Moogle is moot. I do not need to go back to day one posts to prove that if IC didn't show support for what he's basing his claim on (which there isn't anything cause I ignored Moogle).

Also, I never said I didn't read posts. I said large walls of text are not helpful to me. And that I don't like to read (not to be confused with "I don't read").

See that? There's two words there completely change the meaning of what I said and what you thought I said. My posts must be too long.

[BahamutFlare]

But there's no logic behind your posts P-Sleazy. Your voting logic is abstract. Your voting on IC because he mixed up facts is well silly. How many people have mixed up facts in this game? Probably everyone that's trying to follow along.

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by Hawk

Ok so I finally got around to re-reading the thread a bit, but it hasn't really helped me. All I've got so far is really small suspicions on multiple people.

I still don't like Aldurins "Bookie gave me a shit role" claim, because let's face it, that's bullshit. Though he was apparantly investigated and (maybe) turned up clean, so we can wait on that a bit.

Kareshs' strange roleclaims early on still bug me, but he's not done anything else too obviously scummy.

RO made that policy lynch comment, which is a terrible idea, especially seeing as how a lot of the people who voted for Snake were making it a policy lynch, even after he said he was leaving the game, which wasted a lynch and did so on poor logic. As such I am apposed to even the slightest hint of policy lynching, though again, that's the only thing I have to go on for RO.

*snip*

A couple things: First, policy lynches are actually justified in some corner cases.

Next, I'm having a hard time finding much of any valuable information to go on in these discussions I keep seeing. Most of it seems to just be discussing motives which I don't think is too valuable in an information vacuum (which, though it's D2, we are basically still in). For hard evidence, we have the lynch post, the night post, Aldurin and Karesh's role claims and... anything else?

Originally Posted by P-Sleazy

The vote is more of a "you voted for me for posting too little and accomplishing little to nothing so I'll vote for you for posting a lot and accomplishing about as much as I did" kind of thing.

Brevity isn't a bad thing, which is what people are turning my brevity into. At the very least I accomplished what I set out to do with my brevity, which is to say IC's point about me and Moogle is moot. I do not need to go back to day one posts to prove that if IC didn't show support for what he's basing his claim on (which there isn't anything cause I ignored Moogle).

Also, I never said I didn't read posts. I said large walls of text are not helpful to me. And that I don't like to read (not to be confused with "I don't read").

See that? There's two words there completely change the meaning of what I said and what you thought I said. My posts must be too long.

I'm getting really tired of everyone bringing up "walls of text" like you're goddamn politicians out for reelection. I mean, the fuck do you DO on the internet but read?

That said, I don't know that the mini vote train that's gathering on P_Sleazy is justified at this point so I'll just:

FoS: P_Sleazy

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by P-Sleazy

Maybe me being concise with my last post wasn't helpful to you. Thats fine. Giant walls of text aren't helpful to me. Should I vote for everyone with giant walls of text? Guess I should. It's about as helpful of a vote as your votes on me are. Giant walls of text aren't helpful to me cause there's too much "well, I also said this" to hide behind. You're essentiall saying everything and nothing at once. Thats not helpful at all, whilst looking like you're helping, but you're really not accomplishing a whole lot other than making people think that you did. So I'm gonna base this vote on that.

Therefore looking back at the last 40 posts...Geminex and Sifright had the longest posts. if we take out quotes, Geminex wins...barely.

UNVOTE: IC
VOTE: Geminex

Also, IC did have a lengthy post too.

FOS: IC

Also, Fenris, I'm a diabolical genious at EVERYTHING I do. Except spelling.

And Karesh, I still don't like your joke vote but people don't like me being concise.

And everyone else. This is gonna be the longest post you'll probably ever see out of me. Atleast when I voted for IC, it was because he skewed facts into making it seem like I cared about Moogle Day 1(which I didn't). Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know but it seems like something you'd want someone to double check before they post it.

Moral of the story: P_Sleazy doesn't like to read. I like to look at trends instead. It helps if you post graphs and numbers.

Umm, shit, I meant to quote this message instead of the other one in my last reply, just do the substitution y'all.

[Geminex]

Sleazy, you're misrepresenting things. We aren't voting for you cause you're a master of brevity.. We're voting cause you've been pretty inactive, seemingly trying not to get noticed. And there's the connection between you and moogle, which you claim to have disproven? All I can see is you going "No, trust me, bro, I wouldn't do that kinda thing", which, as far as rational arguments go, is about on par with the rest of your activity so far.

See, that's the point. It's not that you're concise. It's that you rarely post, you say pretty much fuck all when you do post, and your voting is weird as well. And that, as far as I can tell, is fairly scummy on its own.

And given that my posts, while sometimes a bit lengthy, at least include some actual content (or so I'd like to believe), I think there's quite a ways between voting for you due to a suspicious lack of activity and voting for me because TL;DR. And comparing the two doesn't do you any favors.

##VOTE: P-Sleazy

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

At this point I would feel quite comfortable with a vote on Sleazy. You were already raising alarm bells with the lack of activity and contributing nothing useful to the discussion, but now you come out and say that long posts are worthy of voting people for, which is the same bullshit reasoning that people jumped on Snake over.

And it is a bullshit reason. You are on the internet, it requires reading. You are playing mafia, it requires reading and analysing the things peope say to determine if they'e lieing about stuff. The more people say in their posts the more we have to look at an analyse and the easier it is to determine lies. Any logic counter to that is unproductive to the town and this coupled with your general inactivity and lack of contributing anything useful yourself makes you look scummy as hell.

Vote: P-Sleazy

Oh and Gem, I already pointed out that Moogle and Sleazy had no connection at all. Moogle voted for Sleazy once and Sleazy never responded. Whatever IC was trying to say there is a moot point because nothing happened. You are the one misrepresenting facts now.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

FOS: Hawk for his consistent and repeated attempts to villianise the snake voters by making up voting reasons that no one was actually using to vote him.
Hawk is attempted to pervert the dialogue of the town by stating incorrect facts so that is what everyone remembers and not what actually happened. Classic scum move.
Snake was voted because he made really long posts which were all personal attacks, bragginga bout how awesome he was and contained no real insight or strategy or anything related to the game. Not because "Durrr his posts are too long"

[Geminex]

He is right on this point, though.

Oh and Gem, I already pointed out that Moogle and Sleazy had no connection at all. Moogle voted for Sleazy once and Sleazy never responded. Whatever IC was trying to say there is a moot point because nothing happened. You are the one misrepresenting facts now.

Just checked, and yeah. You're right, sorry 'bout that. I could've sworn there was something there.

Still keeping my vote on sleazy, though, for the suspicious posting style.

[Sifright]

I'd just like to say I'm not at all impressed with Sleazy going the whole "text is worthless" route Also viewing votings trends and such as the sole arbiter of deciding whether to lynch some one is silly on so many levels because it ignores a whole avenue of information. That said I still think lynching sleazy is wrong for this game day. Right now the cult is the most dangerous faction and unlike the other powers each game day the cult survives it get significantly stronger.

So basically guys lets get some comments on evidence against gem i'm more than a little perturbed that conversation about him has died given the seriousness of what My self and Smarty believe. Smarty would you elaborate further and explain to the others what it is about his day 1 actions that made you think he was CL? I think i've explained my reasoning for the CL conclusion about his day 2 actions well enough.