Mini 754 - Frogs Mafia Game, Set and Match.

[kloud1516]

vote: Gorrad

Obviously, if you know so much about Michigan's large crime population, then you have either done enough research, or spent enough time in the state to easily have fallen prey to their shady activities.

[kloud1516]

Well did it not start converstation?

wait, did you vote me with a dice vote purely to start conversation?

Well not exactly but it did, did it not?

So if you didnt do it to start conversation, why are you stating it?

Smells of someone trying to look good for a "good" deed, though the deed was unintentional.

I didnt really care about your random vote. It is common to dice vote at the beginning of day 1. I didnt really care about other's "attacks" of that vote. Day 1 people attack anyone for anything to get stances, conversation, apply pressure. But when you try to make the random vote look pro town, though that wasnt your intention...that to me looks suspect.

If I meta you..will I find you random voting in every game

?

#1: I didn't start the converstation TSQ did... Wow I've walked my self into a hole here x_x

I don't mean to speak for CKD here, but I do not think the question was whether or not you started the conversation; it was whether or not your dice-roll random vote was intended to in fact spark more extensive levels of conversation. This motive is suggested by the initial "Well did it not start conversation?" question/reply to TSQ, but when inquired further, you seemed to shrink away from your initial justification for the dice vote, claiming that you "did not exactly" do it to start dialogue.

I really have no problem with the dice roll, as everyone has their own methods of voting during the random voting stage of the game, but your responses to these questions just don't seem right to me, as they do indeed come off as you attempting to look protown by generating discussion, even though this hadn't been your intent.

#2: Yes I random vote in almost every game..If i remember correctly.

Wait, what? In your responses during Post 22 (clause a) on Page 1, you clearly state that you have never used dice as a means of voting before. Which is it? Have you never used it before, or do you random vote this way almost every game? I was willing to accept this as a null tell due to meta purposes, but this is an awfully stark contradiction from your primary claim. Could you please explain this to the group, preferably choosing one claim or the other?

Guys, crywolf is pretty clearly town.

This is an awfully bold statement, considering we are only four pages into this game. Care to elaborate just a little more, if not only for the sake of clarity?

Answers to my questions make me satisfied about the dice roll thing, and in addition,

her emotional responses feel more like annoyed townie than angry scum.

They could also be, you know, an Appeal to Emotions? I did not pick up on great deals of emotion (this is not me insinuating that you said there was an overt use of emotion in her rebuttals by any means) in her responses, but I don't think claiming her innocent for said retorts to hold much weight because of the possible AtE.

[kloud1516]

Just two things to note about that, and keep in mind I am drunk so take them with a grain of salt:

1) I was sk in that game, so you can't really discern anything about my alignment from that game.

2) I have no clue why I haven't been scummy nominated for best SK for that game. I caught all the scum, and then pulled the wool completely over the rest of the towns eyes for the win. That was like the penultimate of scum play. I'm actually kind of miffed about lack of nomination from that game.

All ranting aside, all that shows is that I'm capable of being helpful and questioning as scum (although not directly as mafia, which is important because I tend to play SK like a town aligned player until I go for the kill) I'm not sure why you brought it up, although it was fun to reread my pwnage of farside.

Did you forget what role I was in that game?

vote: thestatusquo

Why would you get this overly critical about someone bringing up something clearly pro-town? Imagine:

"hey, check it out, I saw this game where someone was playing exactly the same way as another game where they were the sk, there's a chance we could be onto something here."

Is that not a pro-town thing to do?

Hiding much?

First of all, the context of him bringing it up was not clear. Since he said he didn't have problems with my play before, I was assuming that he was saying I always play like this, in which case I was pointing out a logical flaw by pointing out that I was a SK in that game.

Secondly, how the fuck am I hiding something? I was the one who came out and said I was SK in this game, and therefore all it did is show that I am capable of playing helpfully as SK. The conclusion I drew was a reason to doubt a pro town read on me.

How the fuck is that "hiding" something? In fact, all I did was give reasons why you SHOULDN'T have a pro town read on me.

Your logic makes no sense at all.

I agree with TSQ on every facet of the argument above. Haterade, if you are going to place a serious vote on someone (I am assuming this is not a random vote, based off the "case" you provided), have something to back up your justification, for as it is right now, you have nothing but several paragraphs of fallacy that does little in regards to scum hunting. How about actually reading the thread, comprehending the discussions already taking place, and provide something that might help us catch scum.

[kloud1516]

I agree with TSQ on every facet of the argument above. Haterade, if you are going to place a serious vote on someone (I am assuming this is not a random vote, based off the "case" you provided), have something to back up your justification, for as it is right now, you have nothing but several paragraphs of fallacy that does little in regards to scum hunting. How about actually reading the thread, comprehending the discussions already taking place, and provide something that might help us catch scum.

ugh shut up take your preaching somewhere else please

I'd policy vote you if I didn't think TSQ was mafia.

Gladly, once you stop distorting posts to suit your own obscure and fallacious cases.

Oh really? On what grounds; disagreeing with you?

[kloud1516]

I agree with TSQ on every facet of the argument above. Haterade, if you are going to place a serious vote on someone (I am assuming this is not a random vote, based off the "case" you provided), have something to back up your justification, for as it is right now, you have nothing but several paragraphs of fallacy that does little in regards to scum hunting. How about actually reading the thread, comprehending the discussions already taking place, and provide something that might help us catch scum.

ugh shut up take your preaching somewhere else please

I'd policy vote you if I didn't think TSQ was mafia.

Gladly, once you stop distorting posts to suit your own obscure and fallacious cases.

Oh really? On what grounds; disagreeing with you?

no, you're unnecessarily being a soapbox ass

If wanting someone to actually read the thread so that they can make an informed and logical case justifies a policy lynch in your mind, then so be it. Cherry picking small segments of posts and not reading blocks of content in their entirety before making arguments out of them only impedes town discussion, thus detracting from scum hunting efforts, which was my reasoning for saying something in the first place. I find slightly comical that you would make such a statement so early in the game, and also makes me believe that I might have struck something to make you feel the need to become aggressive in your defenses.

[kloud1516]

So far TSQ and I are the only ones having a legitimate discussion here and it's kind of rude and hypocritical of you to attempt to derail it by posting your irrelevant and antiprogressive trolls. Participate or don't, but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.

TSQ I'll respond to you later, going off to drink now

Really, you don't think a player pressing someone who voted someone without substantial reasoning for doing so for responses while asking them to read the thread more carefully is derailing discussion? Are you honestly disregarding all discussions that took place prior to your vote, including the inquiries dealing with CW's vote (I would still like a response about the contradictory statements, if only to clarify) and all other content as illegitimate? TSQ has proven your case invalid, he did so in his first response, which is why I asked you in the first place to read more carefully in the first place. This does not derail anything, as it will help ensure that all opinions are contributing towards a town win.

What does derail discussion, however, is fallacy and unnecessary ad hominem retorts, as neither help acquire information or encourage open dialogue.

[kloud1516]

furthermore, i don't like kloud's constant use of these "textbook scumtells", per say. what i'm talking about is when he says things like: appeals to emotion, ad hominem (which i don't think is a scumtell at all), fallacies etc.

Answers to my questions make me satisfied about the dice roll thing, and in addition,

her emotional responses feel more like annoyed townie than angry scum.

They

could also be

, you know, an Appeal to Emotions?

I did not pick up on great deals of emotion

(this is not me insinuating that you said there was an overt use of emotion in her rebuttals by any means) in her responses, but I don't think claiming her innocent for said retorts to hold much weight because of the

possible

AtE.

The bolded sections are the key phrase here. I was not saying CW was definitely using Appeal to Emotion, I was just commenting on TSQ's post in which he talks about how he feels she is more likely town than scum because of her emotional responses (that is how I took it at least, correct me if I am wrong). I respond by saying, as seen above, that I didn't the emotion TSQ was referring to in the posts, but I thought it was too early to say such things, considering the "emotion could have been AtE."

Ad hominem:

but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.

I am trying to explain my posts, and he retorts "you're being a soapbox ass," and the post above. Are they ad hominem? The first isn't, but I feel the second borders on it in my opinion. If you don't find it to be an ad hominem, it still has no contributory value to the game, and thus is still a derailment of legitimate discussion, which was the topic of that post.

I would also like to point out that though I brought up these fallacies, I never said I found them to be scum-tells, as you seem to be saying above. My point was that they were unhelpful, as stretched arguments only spark confusion and frustration, thus taking away from scum hunting and discussion, while ad homs do nothing at all to contribute. If I found them to be scum tells, don't you think I would have either leveled at least an FoS?

I don't think these things are coming up as often as he's playing them out to be

I explained why I felt they were being used in the posts I brought them up (I believe), and if I didn't state clearly why I thought they were being implemented, see above for my explanation.

[kloud1516]

first, please point out where i've said nothing interesting has happened. as for who my suspicions are right now, it's true i haven't really made a set list yet because i'm still forming my opinions. i don't see how that's scummy.

Of course you never say that explicitly. That's the general feeling I'm getting from your posts, things that you think are mostly null-tells or slight town-tells. You're not scumhunting.

Saying things are null-tells or town-tells is attacking validity of an argument. People are attacking Haterade for something, Dahill thinks what he is doing is a nulltell, so he is attacking the validity of the case against haterade. That is part of scumhunting.

Saying things are null-tells or town-tells is attacking validity of an argument. People are attacking Haterade for something, Dahill thinks what he is doing is a nulltell, so he is attacking the validity of the case against haterade. That is part of scumhunting.

beat me to it
exactly, would you (MacavityLock) prefer that i don't point out what i think are null/town tells? then you would just accuse me of lurking

Fair points, but that's basically saying that you've found little to nothing suspicious so far, except for Gorrad's mild hypocrisy (which I disagree with by the way) and kloud's overuse of buzzwords. I still think my case is reasonable for page 6.

Finding nothing suspicious on so far makes dahill scum? Would you rather him vote for someone for a bullshit reason?

Why are you responding for dahill, scot? These are two instances in which you a) answer a question posed to dahill before he has even responded or b) jumped to his aid when he is perfectly capable of providing a train of logical reasoning to counter CK's arguments. I am not saying that I do not approve of you voicing your opinion on the matter, but both these posts, in my opinion, seem like you putting words in dahill's mouth or jumping to his defense when unnecessary.

unvote Gorrad

More to come shortly.

[kloud1516]

Why are you responding for dahill, scot? These are two instances in which you a) answer a question posed to dahill before he has even responded or b) jumped to his aid when he is perfectly capable of providing a train of logical reasoning to counter CK's arguments.

I am not saying that I do not approve of you voicing your opinion on the matter,

but both these posts, in my opinion, seem like you putting words in dahill's mouth or jumping to his defense when unnecessary.

unvote Gorrad

More to come shortly.

I am attacking the validity of MacavityLock's case on dahill. I never responded for dahill, I spoke my own mind. Dahill is free to say whatever the hell he wants; I never put words into his mouth.

I'm supposed to sit back and not comment on something I disagree with?

No, if I see something that I think is wrong, I'm going to comment on it.[/quote]

Of course not, and I even said that is not what I meant by that post when I made it. I saw something that

I

thought was taking note of and questioning further, and I did so. Upon first reading your posts during that conversation, that was the impression I came to, so I wanted to ask about it.

[kloud1516]

Why are you responding for dahill, scot? These are two instances in which you a) answer a question posed to dahill before he has even responded or b) jumped to his aid when he is perfectly capable of providing a train of logical reasoning to counter CK's arguments. I am not saying that I do not approve of you voicing your opinion on the matter, but both these posts, in my opinion, seem like you putting words in dahill's mouth or jumping to his defense when unnecessary.

unvote Gorrad

More to come shortly.

I am attacking the validity of MacavityLock's case on dahill. I never responded for dahill, I spoke my own mind. Dahill is free to say whatever the hell he wants; I never put words into his mouth. I'm supposed to sit back and not comment on something I disagree with? No, if I see something that I think is wrong, I'm going to comment on it.

EBWOP ^^

Preview button=friend.

[kloud1516]

Scot, name two players you suspect and your reasoning please.

FoS gorrad

for constant active lurking.

Why did you decide to single me out for this? Why did you not ask any of the other people who are not voting? How bout crywolf whos vote was a random vote?

How is this any different from what TSQ did earlier? I don't recall you jumping all over him for asking individual questions to people.

Scot, name two players you suspect and your reasoning please.

FoS gorrad

for constant active lurking.

Why did you decide to single me out for this? Why did you not ask any of the other people who are not voting? How bout crywolf whos vote was a random vote?

Answer my question first.

No, I'm good. You'll know when I'm ready to vote for someone.

This isn't helpful at all. Why would you not want to voice your suspicions, as doing so will only help maintain group discussion and productivity. This response doesn't sit well with me, as it makes me feel as though you have been trying to appear as though you are scum hunting, but really have made no effort to truly do so.

so you'll just spring it on us when you're good and ready?
seems anti-town frankly to hide your suspicions

Your point? I'm not ready to vote for someone yet, and I'm not going to vote for someone for a bullshit reason just so my vote is on someone.

Expression your opinions of the game thus far does not mean you have to vote someone. I myself would just like to hear your thoughts/impressions/concerns on what has transpired over the duration of the game so far.

Well, see, I'm having a difficult time getting a decent read on anyone right now. I'm thinking I need to reread. Still though, it's strange that RR decided to only single me out.

Fair enough.

[kloud1516]

*tumbleweed*

I feel like this is going nowhere.

TSQ, who should we lynch right now?

Do you honestly feel as though there are no recent discussions/developments you can give your opinion on? Posting in the thread how nothing is happening does not help fix the problem. At all.

vote: kloud

I get a bad vibe from his posts.

Nothing about in particular, but it's a good place to put my vote until I find one.

Is this post saying that you haven't found anything that particularly stands out, but gut feelings will suffice until something comes up? If not, are you saying that you are in the process of looking for posts that gave you the bad vibe? In the time you had to post your two latest submissions, have you found anything?

[kloud1516]

Doing a reread. Will get something up soon.

[kloud1516]

Expression your opinions of the game thus far does not mean you have to vote someone. I myself would just like to hear your thoughts/impressions/concerns on what has transpired over the duration of the game so far.

1)

Well you know where I stand on the whole argument that was brought up against Haterade, and

2)

Its not like I have been voiceless.

3)

It's not like I have been inactive or actively lurking.

I'm going to reread tomorrow (today technically) and find some scum.

1) I do.
2) Never said you were.
3) Never said you were.

More to come

[kloud1516]

I'm here, just extremely busy. Pre-Spring Break exams have drained me of time to post this past week, but I promise to have something up by Friday evening. Sorry for the absence.

[kloud1516]

welcome farside, good to be in a game with you again..

question, what do you think of this comment for CK in reference to CW?

Been waiting for anyone to comment on this..but no one has yet....

still comfortable with my vote on CW however...for now

I too am LA due to the fact I work tonight, tomorrow, Friday, and Saturday...along with two art projects that desperately need working on because its due on Monday. I may need replacing...I dunno how much I can catch up with...I will try.

9 pages is not that much...you seem to be active everywhere else..why?

If she truly is active elsewhere, then this lurking is very disturbing to me.

FoS: crywolf20084

Why exactly were you waiting for others to respond before doing so yourself? What does waiting for others to notice something accomplish? Why bring this up when farside "replaces" in, when it was something you had felt needed to be addressed (as you state above) before?

Well, I can't push out original content in 100% of my posts. Sometimes what is out there is what I believe, and I say that I agree with it. If all I did was follow, I would be a sheep and it would be scummy. But with

some

being the operative word, I hardly fine that to be a bad thing in any way.

my problem with this comment wasnt that it wasnt 100% original..it was almost like you were throwing suspicion on CW without committing to it. "it that is true" then it does look scummy....

why didnt you go check to see if my statement was true for yourself?

this is the problem I am having with you all game (only 10 pages)...comments without the feeling of commitment, or leaving yourself room to manuver later if needed...

Although I find it somewhat confusing that CKD waited to bring this up, I do agree with him that CK's response and FoS are to an extent suspicious. Dropping a vote (technically, an FoS, but CK told us to regard his as if it were a vote) based on a statement to which you did not even look further into does not sit well with me, as I get the impression that you saw something of possible note, and threw your suspicions behind it to make yourself look better. This may not be the case, but, beginning your post with "if" insinuates that you did not cross-check CKD's reasons for finding CW suspect, suggesting that you leveled the vote/FoS half-heartedly.

Didn't notice this until ML brought it up.

Why do you not notice things until I personally bring them up? This is like the 3rd time.

Same question. Might have already been answered at a later time, and if this is so, please disregard.

I'unno, ML. Coincidence?

And yeah, I knew that vote would get me some suspicion. What were my alternatives? Not vote?

You could have voted with the inclusion of some of your own thoughts on the subject, as opposed to simply siting another post as, much the same with CK's post, it does little to show that you are not simply jumping at a chance to get some pro-town points.

So i don't even have a day read of him.

before you reveal anything else about your partner (please don't by the way), right now do you think he/she's scum, town, or nulltell?

At them moment it's a null tell.

On what grounds?

Also, why does neither my analysis of the game nor various back-and-forths not count as scumhunting (I'm assuming you couldn't have overlooked those, but if you did by all means tell me)? They prompted discussion and certainly helped me (and I'm sure others too) formulate opinions on people in the game. Maybe we just don't consider the same things scumhunting. If not scumhunting, they certainly helped move along the game and provided solid content, neither of which I think of as anti-town.

While your provided posts do indeed indicate efforts towards analysis and discussion, I feel it necessary to observe every piece of content with scrutiny. I could use the analogy of a doctor during surgery here, for while a doctor can start out meticulously making incisions to avoid damage to their patient, they must continue diligently with their ministrations throughout the duration, lest something go wrong. This applies to your FoS of CW, for while your earlier posts were insightful and inclusive, such bits of content as that post allude to a lack luster attempt of continued scum hunting. You fail to check your patient’s records, and thus did not seem committed to the task at hand.

Arch srsly, You sound all depressed and blaaaaaah and like this game has no interest to you. Liven up could ya??

TSQ had his computer stolen..So did Haterade. Though Haterade, but he wasn't here prior to that. Kloud is a different story.

I asked him to post once but he hasn't yet. Hrmmm...

Unvote/Vote: Kloud

Policy vote. _{though its for the exact same thing i was doing}

1) When did you request that I post? If I do remember correctly, I had asked you several questions previously in the thread that you still have yet to respond to.

Step aside, the new hypocritical player is coming through.

QFT
2nding ML's questions
my thoughts exactly

Fourthing this notion.

frankly, i think that both attacking and clearing someone solely based on flavor is ridiculous.
there's no way we can know if the scum are frogs/non-frogs, if all frogs are vanilla, etc.

QFT. Flavor is not necessarily indicative of alignment, so providing statements as those above simply based off whether or not someone is frog or a duck or any other animal from the local zoo ([/joke]), is not advisable, especially since we have little information to support any such ideals.

Pay attention, dahill. I'm not clearing Cry solely for her flavor. I'm giving her a temporary pass because of how risky such a fake claim would have been.

This train of logic walks a dangerously-close line with WIFOM.

[kloud1516]

1)

welcome farside, good to be in a game with you again..

question, what do you think of this comment for CK in reference to CW?

Been waiting for anyone to comment on this..but no one has yet....

still comfortable with my vote on CW however...for now

I too am LA due to the fact I work tonight, tomorrow, Friday, and Saturday...along with two art projects that desperately need working on because its due on Monday. I may need replacing...I dunno how much I can catch up with...I will try.

9 pages is not that much...you seem to be active everywhere else..why?

If she truly is active elsewhere, then this lurking is very disturbing to me.

FoS: crywolf20084

Why exactly were you waiting for others to respond before doing so yourself? What does waiting for others to notice something accomplish? Why bring this up when farside "replaces" in, when it was something you had felt needed to be addressed (as you state above) before?

I was curious who was scum hunting and who might comment on this first..and then who would agree after… Trying to find links and connections to people….or on the flip side, see who attacks who and why. As it stands no one did, until I commented on it. I wanted to see how Farside’s view of CK differed from MBF’s (or lack thereof)..also, I was tired of waiting.

Fair enough. The post confused me a little bit so I thought I should ask, for the sake of clarity.

2)

I do NOT support a No Lynch for today. We need as much information as possible going into Day 2, so that we are not stuck making further cases and with minimal concrete evidence. We need a basis from which we can analyze the content of Day 1 in relation to its conclusion, be this in the form of voting patterns, defense (or lack thereof) of the lynched player, and basic content provided. Without a basis to which we can refer, we run the risk of making cases and discussion based solely on speculation, which will only hinder our efforts of scum hunting.

More to come, need to read the latest posts to make sure I am not missing anything.

[kloud1516]

Catching up

[kloud1516]

Geez, big swap from

Gorrad, who do you think we should kill? With TSQ gone, you're the person I trust the most right now. Even though you have been eerily low-key all day phase.

Neighbors means, in my experience, that at LEAST one member of the pair is scum. I've yet to see a neighbor pair that didn't have at least one scum member. Masons can have scum members too, but for neighbors it's pretty much garunteed. I'd believe a Mason claim, give it the benefit of the doubt in the face of scummy behavior, etc. But the fact that he claimed neighbor means that in my mind he's a scummy member of a duo that contains at least one scum.

That aside, no offense taken. 'Tis just a game.

!!!

Unvote, Vote; Crywolf

I'm confused here. You are voting CW because . . . ? If I have missed something in the last couple pages, please point it out to me, because I am drawing blanks here (and also in a hurry).

Permission accepted.

My PM says I am neighbors with crywolf. Even though I think I was already voting for crywolf, I just wanted to make sure I was (guess I was to lazy to look back a couple of posts.) Just another reason to keep my vote.

Of course, if we lynch crywolf, and she turns up town that would look bad for me...

But then again, if I were scum, why would I be pointing this out?

Why am I even continuing this post in the first place? I baffle myself.

Are you saying that you really didn't know where your vote was? This doesn't sit well with me, especially when we were (and still are) coming closer to deadline. From what I see above, you voted with little to no reasoning (again, please correct me on this if I am wrong) to begin with, and then you don't even remember where your vote is. Hmn. This just perturbs me, considering that you are claiming to be her mason partner.

. . . yes, let us just throw the door wide open for all kinds of WIFOM justification in the future.

So, I'm kinda suspicous of Archon

's behaviour since he's joined the game.

After going 20 hours between posting that he's started reading and then posting that he was up to speed and had absolutely nothing to say

, he's pretty much contributed a whole lot of nothing. He voted for cry initially for lurking - or as he pout it, not

voting

for 5 days, which is not particularly indicative of anything, except that he said it meant she was "definitely" scum, which seems far, far too conclusive based on teh available information and the status of her claim.

Then, after some irrelevent content-free posts, he responded to Gorrad pointing out that the use of neighbours rather than masons tends to mean that one or both are scum by promptly

unvoting a vote on cry and revoting for Cry in a very obvious way that appears to be designed to draw great attention to the reason for his vote

. Two posts later, the

intervening p[ost being one about waiting for mod permission

, which I'm a little curious about, he

promptly claims the other half of the neighbour duo

. In this post, he brings up the WIFOMy

stuff about an IzzyCayke lynch being bad for him "if" IzzyCayke turns up town

.

It seems deliberate to me

- that he made that vote to

deliberately lead to pressure for him to claim that came when people questioned his unexplained and attention-seeking vote, so that he could make the claim in a manner that would make him look less suspicious once he's managed to get his neighbour

, who he'd know is not aligned with his particular scumgroup were he scum and is therefore expendable, lynched. Therefore,

vote: Archon

.

1. Yeah, everyone usually is when they first join.

2. I lied. sorry...

So you are admitting that you lied to the group. Why? In what way did you think this was helping town? So you have now 1)voted Cayke without reasoning, 2) expressed a carelessness with your vote, 3) provided WIFOM defense of yourself, and 4) admitted to lying.

If I was mafia, why would I not read all the twenty pages? Wouldn't mafia want to go and scan through pages for a weak person? also, I have never yet had any role other than a townie, and -- whoa... I'm having a nose bleed... and an allergic reaction... this isn't looking good. I'm going to rush this post. anyway, I would be ecstatic to be mafia, and would have glady read all those pages to find a scdapegoat, and make my own arguments. but I didn't.

If you are town, why do you insist on continuing to implement such trains of thought in your own defense? You are providing fallacy as a means to divert suspicion from yourself, which is only making you more suspicious. WIFOM statements mixed with irrelevant blurbs of conscious thought are not helping you. At all.

Jee, people sure are suspicous of me.

Unvote

Alright,

vote Archon

In addition to all things listed above, you now retract your vote on the sole purpose (or at least it appears this way) people are becoming suspicious of you. You are giving me chills with the scum vibes you are emanating.

I am, as you guys have seen, a newb. Although at some points I can make good dcisoins, I am still learning.

Even if you are a newb, you have just as much chance of being selected as scum as the rest of us. For this reason, using your claimed inexperience as a shield/explanation for your actions now being found suspect is not going to prove all that helpful.

410 shows signs of you lying for no one's benefit but to preserve your own hide and contians more WIFOM than Watchmen does man-ass. 411 shows you haven't been paying attention to your own partner. 417 puts you as a Toad in Frogs Mafia.

well, exuse me for noticing that her avatar was a duck. I thought that everytime somone called her a duck, it was a joke.

alos, you completley re-stated what you just said in the last post of yours. Tell me what exactly about it is scummy. me using your idea, then trying to cover my butt when people attack me?

I....you...it's been one of the biggest points brought against her! Geez.

QFT

I never lurked. I guess I forgot to post it in this particular forum, but I was on a plane going to mexico. Thus the short period of inactivity.

Actually, I have about 6 hours to burn. I'm sitting here in the Dallas/fort worth airport bouncing airplanes (volunteering to skip the flight for airline vouchers and other perks) and so far, together with my dad, we have accumulated over $3,000 worth of free airline vouvhers. we also got to stay in a four star hotel last night. The next flight back home will be at 4 or something, so I have alot of time to burn on the internet.

So, I wasn't lurking.

Then what is this:

3. Typo

I was trying to act like i was in the game, which I am now. back then, I did not have alot of patience, and so I just was being strange.

?