1116 - Literally Anything uPick

[Plum]

VOTE: Chronopie

Just because I can.

[Plum]

I might've semi-consciously noted that he hadn't really been mentioned in conversation, but it wasn't at the forefront of my awareness that no votes were on him.

[Plum]

1. Not especially. It's not indicative of anything specifically, alignment or whatnot.
2. Depends how relevant you think it is. You seem to think it's mildly relevant at best (? - as far as I can discern) and I suppose there is a degree of anomaly there. This early in the game poking at any anomaly isn't relevant even if the anomaly is intrinsically meaningless/indicative of nothing.

[Plum]

Uhhhh. I don't think it

shouldn't

guide our actions.

I don't think we're on the same page here because I'm very confused as to what you're asking and/or what you're driving at.

[Plum]

Does it necessarily, Ghost? What do you think of CES now?

[Plum]

Leo's vote is thrown far too easily, considering there are already several other votes on Ghost, even more so since there is no reason given, and even more so than that seeing as how it's no longer RVS.

Unvote
Vote: Leo

Throws votes around too easily? There are some other votes on Leo amirite? Let's call this an I-hate-when-people-argue-points-based-on-whether-they-think-we're-still-i-the-RVS. Mister.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Zodiark

[Plum]

For all you interested, I will try to make a better deal of explaining my Zodiark vote, mkay?

Leo's vote is thrown far too easily, considering there are already several other votes on Ghost, even more so since there is no reason given, and even more so than that seeing as how it's no longer RVS.

Unvote
Vote: Leo

At this point there were already three votes on Leo.
Zodiark votes Leo who has several other votes on him. This is hypocritical.
'It's no longer RVS' may be a pet peeve of mine of sorts, but here's the thing: it's used almost as an excuse by Zodiark. Nudging someone to post more content because 'it's not longer RVS' is generally something I don't have a major problem with, but using it in this way, justifying a weak reason to vote someone who has a big bandwagon on him (the phrase 'even more so' I find particularly jarring) seems scummilicious. My wording was less clear about this, but the way in which Zodiark invoked the end of the RVS was scummy.
Plus several other votes on Ghost = 2 votes? Hm?

Just reeks of a scummy approach to a bandwagon.

What I dislike is the general tone that Zodiark isn't capable to determine the end of RVS (for them, really) or not, and make a vote that seems serious to them at this point.

No, he's perfectly qualified to determine a time to place a serious vote. He's not qualified to make a bad, scummy accusation against someone and back it up with his interpretation of the RVS in this game. It's too subjective to be anything but a bad justification, as opposed to an honest reason. Saying "It's srs-ness time everybody!" is different, precisely because it's a general call to action and not a specific justification for a bad vote. As far as I can see, anyway.

Lolno. That's not how this game works. You don't drop a vote without reason, then, over 12 hours later, point to a page, and expect that to pass as valid reasoning. I myself don't actually want to see a reason as much as I want to see a reason for there being no reason in the first place. I still want to see a reasoning, but reason-for-there-being-no-reason-to-begin-with is a higher priority. And if you want to drop a vote without any reasoning, expect to play 'verbal charades'. Lastly, no, I am committed to this, elsewise I wouldn't be up at 1am in the morning making this post.

Did you bother to read the page Leo indicated or not?

Hey, AV. You're voting me because why? Hmmm. Do you have better thing to do with your vote than poke me with a stick, or . . . ?
Ghostling, what changed between your first post directed at me after my Zodiark vote and the one right after AV's vote on me? In which you quoted him and then voted me? I didn't post between those two posts and you expressed pretty similar views about my behavior in both. So what was new?

Who decides when we're out of RVS? Probably each individual player in turn.

Exactly. And justifying a vote on a player based on

one's own judgment

of when the RVS ended - a judgment which, as you acknowledge, doesn't necessarily apply perfectly to him - is bad and can be done in a scummy way. As here.

I can agree with most of what has been said about Plum. The only thing that makes me hesitate to vote her is that other than the vote, she hasn't done too much other than the vote on Zodiark which again, is somewhat understandable seeing as how it was still early. I'd like for Plum to explain herself before I come to a conclusion.

stranger continues to make noise without really saying much at all (Yes, we know that's all and we know that he's going to post. He even backed it up with past games)

Here's a fun fact for you all. Ant has been posting in other games but not this one.

I am irritated by your lack of votes altogether (assuming the Vote Count was incorrect and you're the only one not voting, yes?). However if you're consistent it's null, and you get a boost for the fun fact. I found it fun.

[Plum]

Okay. Now that you've read my follow-up post . . . ?

[Plum]

Zodiark votes Leo who has several other votes on him. This is hypocritical.

How is this hypocritical? Zodiark seems to be voting Leo for

purposefully

bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning and even backs up this statement by saying Lero isn't providing reasoning.

Leo's vote is thrown far too easily, considering there are already several other votes on Ghost

The 'no reasoning' thing was worded as a supporting point/icing. I think it's hypocritical to call someone out for throwing out votes too easily on someone who already has votes on in the course of voting someone with more votes on him. I see nothing about " bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning" in Zodiark's statements here.

Leo indicated that if anyone was wondering about his reasoning they ought to have read/read Page 2 of the game. No linkage was needed. But in any case, when prompted by that, Zodiark responded "You don't drop a vote without reason, then, over 12 hours later, point to a page, and expect that to pass as valid reasoning". I want to know if he even looked at the page that he acknowledged was being pointed at at the time he made that statement.

"I should of done this on my last post, but I will do it now."

If this doesn't answer your question I don't know what will.

I'd rather WHO answer it. That is, I want to hear what Ghost has to say about it and discuss it. Regardless of that line in Ghost's post, I think there's reason to ask

Ghost

about it. Your two cents are appreciated . . . probably not in the way you intended them to be, but well.

In this last post, Plum twists three situations around to put people in a scummy light. Plums reasoning for voting Zodiark is particularly weak as well and to me just looks more like Plum disagrees with Zodiark's playstyle rather than thinks he's really scummy.

Did you read the multiple times I referred to Zodairk's scummy approaches to justifying his Leo bandwagon vote through his RVS statement, rather than is just being a general statement in my last post?

In this last post, Plum twists three situations around to put people in a scummy light. Plums reasoning for voting Zodiark is particularly weak as well and to me just looks more like Plum disagrees with Zodiark's playstyle rather than thinks he's really scummy.

Am I particularly scummy yet, then?

PREVIEW EDIT: Thanks, Ghost, that pretty much makes sense (and makes a lot more sense than Doombunny's excuse for you as well, because if it was only 'I forgot' I'd have expected something more like 'Ah, AV makes sense just like I was saying . . . damn I forgot to vote her well no time like the present' instead of a longer rehash post. Probably).

[Plum]

/prodded

I'm sorry that I literally have no time to post properly from now until maybe 7:30 pm EST tomorrow; unexpectedly I was busy yesterday.

[Plum]

Can you show me where he's being hypocritical? For it to be hypocritical he'd have to be throwing around votes too easily. Seeing as how he only voted one person (Not including his RVS vote) and he provided reasoning for it, I can't really see that.

First of all, I happen to be under the impression that there is some degree of opportunistic bandwagoning inherent in Zodiark's vote. In any case, his specification (I paraphrase) 'especially with several votes on Ghost already' regarding Leo's vote looking like intentional bandwagoning is hypocritical given that Leo had more votes on him at the time of Zodiark's vote than Ghost did at the time of Leo's vote. A concern about throwing votes on someone who has many votes is hypocritical to some degree when combined with a vote on someone who has even more votes on him already.

I want to know if he even looked at the page that he acknowledged was being pointed at at the time he made that statement.

What does this have to do with anything? If someones reasoning for voting someone (Leo gets a bye since this seems to be his meta) is "Go look at him in iso. It's obvious he's scum." I'd think that would be pretty fishy regardless of whether or not I looked or not.

My question is whether or not he looked. Given Leo's wording, was it impossible that something Ghost

or

Leo had said on page 2 was at all relevant? I'm concerned over the fact that Zodiark didn't seem interested in trying to determine whether or not his reasons for suspecting Leo covered the full scope of Leo's actions and intentions or not.

@Zodiark

- I never said you voted 'wildly', so I'd prefer you not formulate your response heavily quoting that word, and in fact I am very irritated that you used it so extensively. I'm also not upset that you and I may have different ideas about when the RVS ended. I don't even know that I disagree with you - only that it's a very subjective thing which I find suspicious for you to cite when trying to back up your reasons for a vote which I already found somewhat hypocritical and opportunistic. Basically as I saw it, you were forcing your interpretation of when the RVS ended (and/or what the RVS constitutes) on Leo retroactive to his vote in an attempt to make his vote look bad enough to justify your leap onto the bandwagon. Granted though that I can see where your reasoning on Powerrox is coming from. Hm.

CES' Dayprotect also has me thinking there is a link of some sort between him and plum. WIll be observing.

It's only because I've had to deal with this sort of messed up logic before that I'm going to shout something out now, that being: Do you think we're scum together? Do you think we're Town together and have some degree of knowledge of that? In what instances would you use a Dayprotect on someone if you had one? Do you even know what a Dayprotect does? Oh yeah, and I am unamused by your shameless Powerrox bandwagon leap.

Why is it bad to not be voting someone? If you don't have any strong scum reads then you shouldn't vote.

Theory disagreement and I want to keep it that way. I said irritated and if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean 'scummy' by that. Just irritated.

-CES prematurely 'Dayprotects' Plum, despite her only having a couple votes on her. Presumably this prevents lynching. Probable Plum-CES link.

Same thing I said to AntB. If you think there's a link, what sort of link do you think there is and why make note of it?

I'm moderately suspicious of the various people who posit links between me and CES over Dayprotectgate.

I could go check Leo's meta-ing of Powerrox, but I'm inclined to believe he's not making it up (and while he hasn't been very proactive about making reads, there are others in this game who, I've felt, have made excuses not to vote top suspects and/or not to post at all). In which case: Powerrox. How did Leo shift down from your top scumread? What changed between Post #77 and Post #149?

[Plum]

O RLY

[Plum]

1. I've heard worse from better. But for the 'this is going to sound bad' I'd be mostly okay with it. Oh yeah and the fact that -

2. Really? Really really really? This is what you do? Premature claim?

[Plum]

2. Not the case, as a matter of fact. Certainly not as things stood when I posted before.
3. Later vote by Zodiark looked somewhat more like an opportunistic bandwagon vote because the Leo wagon looked stronger and bigger. Hence seemed scummier. Furthermore seemed to be very involved in justifying his vote, as if he were worried about being chewed out for jumping onto the wagon. Scummier still. So it caught my attention and the justification seemed itself a scumtell of more magnitude.

Pi: How confident are you that we're scumbuddies, SC and I? Because you seem pretty confident. Myself I'm generally uninterested in talking about potential scumteams until there's at least a flip down because it;s generally so shot-in-the-dark, even when you feel good. So. How good do you feel on this.

[Plum]

Hey SC, can I ask you a question?

[Plum]

Leo sighs an acknowledgment that the idea behind their above post is very abstract.

Then Leo turns and gives Plum and StrangerCoug a look like you would look at two people who just publicly admitted they were deciding whether a scumpartner should bus them.

Yo, Leo.

Guess who was wondering who sent that message and trying to reason out who could've sent it? I figured that some sort of scum message went awry and was either redirected at me or copied to me unbeknownst to the scum. First thing I could think of was to post a smiley and ask a question and see if anyone started acting odd afterwards (I suppose I might've waited to see if anyone started a post with a smiley or not, but I assumed that it had been a message redirected). That said I find it funny you think I'd ask my scumbuddy to bus me in this situation, but either way. Scum would (in general) either know who their buddies are and their abilities (which would include sending messages in the middle of the Day, nach) and have either Nighttalk or anytime talk anyway. I'm not used to people believing I'm completely thick, but in any case I wish I knew what conclusive proof you see in this except players trying out responses to strange messages from unknown sources. If you were really interested in confirming your shot-in-the-dark hypothesis you'd have waited to see if I started lying down to anyone's strong attacks or sommat.

Basically, do you truly believe a scumbag would assume an anonymous, unanticipated daymessage regarding whether or not you want to be bussed (in a situation where you, if scum, would not benefit the team by being bussed, in my ever so humble) was from a certain specific scumbuddy, trustworthy, and worth responding to in the thread? No really, I'd like an answer here.

Powerrox: On your Towniehood, you began this game with a Redirector power. Yes or No, please.

If Plum's scum, then I can see Leo being cleared, but they're on opposite alignments, I can tell you that.

Why do you say this?

I don't buy the

Second half

of the trap.

Anyone that had a question directed at them such as "Can I ask you a question?" might reply with "what?"

But

Unvote: PR, Vote: Plum

The first half I do see as a slip.

If Plum is town, We Lynch Leo tomorrow.

Nice setting up lynches, scumbag. Leo may well be Town suffering from a mighty ego/confirmation bias complex. Also, read my response to Leo above re: the so-called trap.

[Plum]

As you are a Townie, you are a Redirector; if you aren't a Redirector as of gamestart you aren't a Townie in this game. Basically, on your life, y/n?

[Plum]

Ghost:

1. I know the question looks pointless, but there is a method to my madness.

CES:

1. I thought that it was plausible, especially in a setup apt to have more complex/obscure role in, that the message I was sent had been copied from a message sent between players who presumably were scumbags. I had no better hypothesis than that some role interaction had caused me to receive scum communication. Hell, if someone submitted as a role someone who pioneered wiretapping techniques, this could easily be a role resolution. I had no reason to think that such a role/interaction in this game was less likely than anything else specifically.

2. Rolenames aren't always descriptive? Possibly, but I'm fairly certain that if a scumbag had read his Role PM well enough to summarize it to the Mod as was required he'd be aware of whether or not the scum had Daytalk or not and be surprised by completely anonymous communication he wasn't expecting. Basically, under what circumstances would scum be expected to respond to an anonymous message asking if he wanted to be bussed with a direct reply - given that the player wouldn't know who asked him if he wanted to be bussed anyway? If he doesn't know who 'I' is when asked 'should I bus you'.

AV -

1.

She does make a good point about Chronopie though, if Plum/SC are town, then their reactions are honest, but probably confusing for Leo if he's town. I'm wondering if Chronopie is scum capitalising on a mistake.

Plum, you say your response was a gambit, playing along with the message to see what happened. But scum would know you had received their message by your smiley, and since they would know you weren't their partner, your gambit was impotent. What were you hoping to achieve?

Seeing if any scum panicked, thinking I had seen their communication and/or knew anything else about them because of it.

Also: Plum, you said you thought you might have intercepted the message, or it may have been sent by accident. The first seems a leap of logic. As far as the second, and SC, you thought this too; did you not think it would be wise to alert the mod if you thought an error had occurred? I think its more likely that the flavour of one of the scum's roles could be interpreted as a messaging role, and that lubricated the falling into the trap.

Flavor with the message implied that I suddenly had this flash of knowledge in my mind - it sounded like this was something where intentionally I wasn't expecting it or whatnot but got sent to me anyway. I didn't think an error had occured; I thought that Mod had it down right and I'd gotten a message addressed to scum, possibly copied to me as it was sent via the Mod.

How reasonable do you think it is that this was, in your words, a 'mistake'? How is this confusing for Leo if he's Town over Townies who are Town and hearing about it now?

Zodiark - If you're going to respond, an actual response would be nice.


Leo:

1. When I tried to decide whether to try to provoke a response with a question or a smiley I chose smiley but to try to increase scum confusion and provoke a response I followed it with a question. Shot in the dark I thought I'd ask a question of SC to get in the question, and if I got a response I might ask him if he was expecting to see smileys in posting in general. Naturally if this was set up by you as an attempt to make a trap the question would be meaningless, as it was designed to be one which would draw out any sort of reaction from whoever might know about the message, the player presumably being scum sending messages during the Day.

2. I wanted to see if I could use this message, which I'd assumed had possibly been copied to me when it was sent from one player to the other, to find out who sent it/if anyone else received it. Best way I could think of was putting down a smiley and seeing if anyone behaved differently.

3. Question to you: How do you expect a Townie would respond to this sort of anonymous message and/or can you think of any alternate Townie-reactions, either before your power-use or now?

4. Yes. There are mixed (and some scummy) reactions re: the trap. This is typical. You, however, very strongly believe that your guess is correct.

[Plum]

Zodiark - If you're going to respond, an actual response would be nice.

Nice attempt to dodge. Failed mind, but still nice.

I would still like to see Pwer hang today, but Leo has made sure that thats not happening. Plus, the case is quite conclusive.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Plum

No, seriously. Unless you sincerely believe that only scum would attempt to explain why he's not scum like that, respond as such. If you

do

believe that, I guess it would be nice to understand why.

@CES:

I figured that some sort of scum message went awry and was either redirected at me or copied to me unbeknownst to the scum.

I explicitly noted copied as one of the possibilities that occured to me.

Name one concrete thing that scum panicking would've entailed. I wouldn't expect that to work.

Any fixation on that post of mine, noticing the smiley at all in the thread (and especially attacking it or questioning it), behaving towards me differently than before after my post with no either explicitly regarding that post/for no well explained reason (e.g. if I'd been under mild suspicion from a player directly before that post and there was a sudden shift either towards attacking me harder or ignoring me more - or if a player had been ignoring me and suddenly became interested in me either way). Any of these would be reason for me to look into the possibility that that player was the scumbag to whom the message was directed. Is it the most brilliant gambit? I suddenly had information - or so I thought - directly from scumbags. But I lacked an easy way to determine to whom it was directed or who sent it, and this was the approach to making any use of it that I came up with.

[Plum]

Doombunny9 - It's clear that we disagree re: whether Zodiark's vote had any inherent hypocrisy. The backing-up reasons for

why

he voted Leo were strongly related to the manner in which he voted, that is, easily placing a vote on a large wagon. There was a level of hypocrisy there which increased the impression of scummy opportunism I have in that voting act.

Please give a moment to comment on Leo's 'trap' and why you believe in it so hard, and what your reaction might be should SC or I flip Town, both regarding the other and regarding Leo. Thanks.

Any fixation on that post of mine, noticing the smiley at all in the thread (and especially attacking it or questioning it), behaving towards me differently than before after my post with no either explicitly regarding that post/for no well explained reason (e.g. if I'd been under mild suspicion from a player directly before that post and there was a sudden shift either towards attacking me harder or ignoring me more - or if a player had been ignoring me and suddenly became interested in me either way).

Attacking a smiley? Really? You also seem to be ignoring that scum would, upon learning or suspecting that you had intercepted sensitive information, try not to signal to you that that post was significant to them.

The hope was that some behavior change would be noticeable - in part because I tried to leave it ambiguous whether or not more information than the bare phrase had been intercepted. For all I thought the scum knew they might be worried that if I knew about the message I knew about something else - when the message was sent, or possibly to/from whom it was sent (or that I might have a guess to that effect) - in which case they might change their behavior for those reasons. Additionally, in a game of information/reaction - the very nature of Mafia - it might be hard for them to react as if it had no meaning to them completely, if it had any meaning to them. Was it a brilliant plan? No. Was it the idea I came up with out of a desire to use this information as best I could to find scum? Yes.

L-what am I at

[Plum]

Oh, you too, Chrono. Please tell me why you're setting up lynches and equating me-Town with Leo scum, given that you both have the same material to work with regarding his gambit and the reactions thereto. And why you'd mention that if you're so sure I'm scum. And in general what you got from the trap and if you've even read anything I have said in response.

KTHX

PREVIEW EDIT:

So either your role lets you eavesdrop on scum, we have a day redirector (lol) or you slipped...

Can you not conceive of a role or mechanic which would send a copy of a PM to a recipient other than the one intended, and/or copy it? What would you think if you received out of the blue a message like the one I received?

It's clear what the hell happened that I got a message. Leo sent it to me in an attempt at a gambit. I tried to make sense of the event and came up with that as a plausible answer, or the most plausible I could see. It's clear now we don't (necessarily) have a role/mechanic which would allow PM-interception/copying, but I reacted to the message as I saw it.

Point two, have you read at all my responses or not? I doubt you have; I addressed what my question to SC would've been and why it's no longer relevant. Given that you haven't read that, I am under the impression that you've read very little in the way of my responses and are opportunistically jumping on this wagon in a distinctly scummy manner.

[Plum]

Doombunny - Have you read any of my responses to the others who believe this was some sort of slip, yes or no?

[Plum]

But you agree that

their behavior might change

in some possibly perceptible way if they had any fears that their messages were being intercepted. Becoming more discreet might be noticeable and possibly lead to an avenue of scumhunting previously unavailable.

I'd like to know how you'd make use of the information if you received such an anonymous message through the Mod out of the blue, and why my response was necessarily not a Townie one. Not necessarily a good idea from a Townie, but merely the possibility that the response was a Townie's idea.

The problem here is that you (and others) are assuming that Occam's Razor is applicable here. My point is that you're making assumptions which in fact are not nearly as solid as you either believe or pretend.

[Plum]

Welcome to the game, Batt.

Not good play doesn't equal scum-motivated. I'm not saying my reaction was necessarily what you would have done - or for that matter the optimal use of the apparent information. You've stated why you think it's bad play as Town - fair enough, I suppose, but I'd like to know whether you think Plumscum is conclusive and, either way, why.

[Plum]

Welcome to the game, Batt.

Not good play doesn't equal scum-motivated. I'm not saying my reaction was necessarily what you would have done - or for that matter the optimal use of the apparent information. You've stated why you think it's bad play as Town - fair enough, I suppose, but I'd like to know whether you think Plumscum is conclusive and, either way, why.

I'm not sure that's a good defense: Both Town and Scum do really stupid things. This defense kind of reads "I made a poor play, and poor play doesn't make one scum." Which is true, but if we don't vote for inconsistencies and the like, then we're just randomly voting for scum. It's an argument against scumhunting.

Not at all. Some poor play is more likely to be scum-motivated and some is more likely to be Town-motivated. The key to scumhunting is identifying what's what. That is, I understand why someone might not believe that my response was the ideal Townie use of the apparent information boon I received. This is not the same as saying that the poor play was Town motivated (in this case, the argument would have to be that the play was so poor it was unlikely to come from a Townie playing badly - which I will state is not the case). Basically, poor play can be a basis for a scumread if qualified re: why the poor play indicates strongly a scum motivation over a Townie motivation/mistake in the mind of the one making the case.

PREVIEW EDIT: I'm Bar Kochba, 'Power Cop'. Basically my character/role lead a Jewish uprising against the Romans. I am allowed to ask, each Night, a yes/no question regarding a player's role but

not

his alignment (cf. the Bar Kochba game cited in the Wikipedia article). That is, I can ask if a certain player is, say, a Doctor. I cannot ask if a certain player is aligned with the scum (or the Town or anything else). This was part of the reason I was interested that Powerrox confirm that his claim was what it is.

[Plum]

CES - No, actually, it isn't. It

is

time for people to evaluate my claim, for Chrono and AntB and Zodiark

at least

to respond to me and Batt to comment on the game. You too, for that matter (at least re: my claim. Seriously). And afterwards we will attempt to lynch someone who may be actual scum.

[Plum]

I admit that some of my thoughts on an ideal situation seeped into my statements there, but considering it was a response to CES's statements I didn't feel it inappropriate. That said, if you are unconvinced by my arguments, what stake do you have in not hammering me now? Out of curiosity.

CES - Frankly I think it does have bearing on my alignment from an objective point of view, which you are not even considering - well.

[Plum]

Can we go lynch Chronopie then?

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Chronopie

If no one thinks my Zodiark case has any merit, Chrono tried directly to set up lynches inappropriately. And the rest of his play has been unimpressive at least. I'll put together a proper case tonight because I have to go in like two minutes, but.

[Plum]

UNVOTE: Plum

While I understand the claim is plausible, and that role != alignment, the a line in the wiki article caught my eye.

After the failure of the revolt, the rabbinical writers referred to bar Kokhba as "Simon bar Kozeba" (Hebrew: בר כוזיבא‎, "Son of lies" or "Son of deception").

I will place my Vote back on to avoid a no lynch however.

My vote is so damn well in the right place. Chrono, who's your top suspect now and why aren't you voting him so close to deadline?

Yeah Chrono is looking increasingly bad. But is he hopping off a buddy's wagon or hopping off a mislynch? :\

Either way it's a better idea to lynch him than me if this is true, no?

Re: Chrono on a more holistic scale:

1. His first posts are nigh contentless. He makes no attempt to say anything regarding CES/me on bandwagoning early in the game. He calls out a 'Probable Plum-CES link' re: the Dayprotect which I find scummish or at least useless. His scumhunting, such as it is, is

extremely

passive. He's calling very few players out as questionable at all, and even CES he doesn't vote, oh, hmph, I'll post the whole thing:

So a quick run over:

Unvote

-Leo has a post restriction, in which he has to post as though miming things.

-CES prematurely 'Dayprotects' Plum, despite her only having a couple votes on her. Presumably this prevents lynching. Probable Plum-CES link.

-CES's #112-113 is suspicious.

--

AntB - Null read.
AV's reading strong town to me
CES - Not sure what to make of his whole string of posts about whether it was relevant that I didn't have vote prior to plum's vote, His premature Day protect, and the large number of one liners in his iso.
Doombunny - Town
Framm's been absent, and his post's ambivalent

I need to wait for a little bit more information to come out before making a stronger statement.

Rest will come later. Now, I get lunch.

Everyone's Town or null except CES, whom he tentatively attacks but is 'not sure' on. He's voting no one at this point. Next time he has to be prodded (second time in the game).

/prodded. I was going to say it hadn't been 72 hours, but the rules for this game say 48... :/

--

Well I don't buy the claim of hacker = Busdriver

Why would a hacker be able to change the positions of two people.

VOTE: Powerrox

He 's confident enough that Powerrox's claim isn't viable that he votes the guy to L-1 having said this and this only on Powerrox. First of all, stupid reason to vote a guy in my humble if it stands alone, given the premise that the Mod has some amount of imagination. But anyway, keep both his confidence in the vote on such little evidence and this sort of evidence, because I think it gets interesting soonish.

I don't buy the

Second half

of the trap.

Anyone that had a question directed at them such as "Can I ask you a question?" might reply with "what?"

But

Unvote: PR, Vote: Plum

The first half I do see as a slip.

If Plum is town, We Lynch Leo tomorrow.

Should be self-explanatory, but I'll give it a go anyway. Leo presented all the information involved in his trap-gambit, and neither SC nor I contradicted him. We have no reason to assume that Leo is withholding any information about the gambit. So each player can judge for himself whether or not the trap produces viable results or not. Clearly Chrono believes that the trap was conclusive evidence against me. How, then, would Leo be more scummy if I'm, in fact, Town? Would it not be a case of Leo making the same mistaken assumption that Chrono made, in that case? This seems like a case of hypocrisy ('I can be mistaken about the conclusions drawn from the trap, but if Leo makes the same error he's scum to be lynched') and furthermore sets up a lynch contingent on me flipping Town. I guess this holds more weight for me, knowing that I am Town, but this is really really scummy, capitalizing on any errors in overall thinking in order to set up lynches based on future flips for no good reason at all.

I could furthermore ask what happened to Powerrox suspicion, where his claim was so unbelievable that that was all it took to vote the guy to L-1, but your mileage may vary on that one.

I'm convinced we've found Plum-Scum.

So I'll give time for Batt to read over the thread, then we can finish lynching her. k? k.

This isn't scumhunting. This is rhetoric, and not particularly inspired rhetoric at that. Yes, you said you thought I'm scum. You say nothing more here but

filler

. You appear guilty of lurking and active lurking/posting without posting content. And yeah, I checked: He was prodded twice, and each time posted plenty of other times on the site as a whole in between. Avoiding the thread and not posting real content when he's here.

UNVOTE: Plum

While I understand the claim is plausible, and that role != alignment, the a line in the wiki article caught my eye.

After the failure of the revolt, the rabbinical writers referred to bar Kokhba as "Simon bar Kozeba" (Hebrew: בר כוזיבא‎, "Son of lies" or "Son of deception").

I will place my Vote back on to avoid a no lynch however.

Hacker = Redirector is nigh impossible and scummy enough to vote Powerrox on it only to L-1. But my claim is plausible. But you say it's not necessarily correlated with my alignment. But then again the guy sounds possibly scummy as a character. So you unvote, vote no one (

what about Powerrox??!?!

), getting off my wagon. Magnanimously offering to vote only when it would be better to have a Townie lynched than the alternative - a Day 1 no-Lynch. That's not scumhunting/recognizing Town. That's trying to get away from a wagon that's likely enough to go down anyway, trying to get credit for being good in the process.

Also

- Why doesn't Chrono vote anyone, not even Powerrox? By all rights that guy is his top suspect now and the most viable counterwagon, probably, to the wagon on someone he says he'd rather not lynch. The guy who was so scummy that I won't repeat myself sayng it. Is there a vote? NOTHING.

Also

- another kicker - if Chrono thinks I might be Town, and Town-Plum equals scum-Leo (a premise he hasn't retracted) - why no new comments or scrutiny from him onto Leo??

Translation: I believe she is what she claimed, but due to that line, I think she may still be scum.

Translation: Maybe-maybe not. Good enough to unvote her but then again she

could

be scum. Dude, if the character and the alignment aren't necessarily related, what bearing does this have on your uber-strong scumread on me.

And yeah, this is all the content he's posted this game. If you can call it that.

The guy is scum. Vote accordingly.