Mini 410 - McDonald's Mafia [Game Over!]

[StallingChamp]

Hey all! Happy to be back and all, but lets start off with a

Vote: pete d

for being last to confirm.

[StallingChamp]

Oh, and I'm eating McDonalds now, how ironic.

[StallingChamp]

Unvote, OMGUS vote: blago

Glork is the only name that sticks out as a great player, so voting him this early is bad!

[StallingChamp]

I'll be gone for 24 hours.

[StallingChamp]

First of all, I must say I am very happy with what happened while I was gone. I proxied my vote for one main reason: to generate discussion. How many games do you know that have actual, legitimate discussion by post 22? It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that. I will

Unvote

for now, since I have my vote back, but it may very well go back on FA for his reaction once I read more carefully. Expect more later tonight/tomorow morning. When I make a more in-depth post, I will answer/reply to every comment made about the proxy. Feel free to ask any questions, as well.

P.S. Glork was the only name that stuck out as an exceptional player from when I was here a few months ago.

[StallingChamp]

1) ORLY?

2) There are no more subtle way to make the "hidden" part of that statement plausible? This method is about as good as making a post that says "SUP MASON".

3) It's a safe decision... if you are town. All of point three is logical if you are a confirmed townie, you are not and therefore it is not. Am I missing something?

4) Well, we agree on that, anyway. SC? Incredibly bad play. At best. Pretend all that stuff was in question form and respond accordingly. Vote stays - the whole town can note it if they like.

1) YARLY

2) I am not implying that I am or am not masons with Glork, but note that he mentionned that, not me.

3) I have said my reasons for proxying my vote, and once the decision to proxy was made, I doubt anyone here disagrees with Glork as a choice

4) Disagree with the bad play. Noted, and returning my vote to you for that. You have blown this WAY out of proportion.

Vote: FA

btw, also noted that you only quoted certain parts of Glork's post, while keeping it in 1 section to make it seem like his whole post.

[StallingChamp]

Just to be clear, I didn't find it necessary, I did it to spark discussion.

FA - Why did you attack me so heavily for a minor thing? You seem to be taking advantage of this to get me lynched. Lynch-happy scum?

[StallingChamp]

Nobody needs to proxy their vote for a 24 hour abscence, nobody needs to proxy their vote on day one, and nobody should be "willing to put their faith into"

any

unconfirmed player, regardless of their experience level.

I also find myself wondering what secret fountain of scumbusting he hoped to uncover with a mere one day leave.

I have said it several times now, I didn't NEED to proxy the vote, I did it for a specific reason. Your attempts to change my reasoning is noted.

As far as trust goes, I didn't expect Glork to do anything special with my vote. I proxied to generate discussion, and I am very happy with the discussion I generated. Are you honestly saying someone of Glork's skill would not only try to pull off a quick-lynch on page 1, but get away with it?

[StallingChamp]

First, the whole "your (insert whatever) is noted" gimmick is already taken this game. Pick something else.

I just posted to let you know that I noted the fact that you continue to twist my words.

Second, I would stick with letting Glork handle your arguments for you. In this sense of the word "needs" is clearly meant to indicate

the town's

needs and not your own. The so called change of reasoning you're trying to pin on me is a response to Glork's words and not your own.

I don't anyone to give my arguments. You are beating around the bush.

As far as the "secret fountain of scumbusting" line, here are your own words:

"It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that."

Am I mistaken in the belief that the "discussion" you hoped to draw had the purpose of finding someone you found scummy (ie - the first guy to call you out)? Or did you hope to generate idle discussion of the weather?

you called me out for a bad reason. That sent me scummy vibes. Mission accomplished.

As far as "trust" goes, I'll need to repeat it again since you haven't mentioned or reponded to it at all in your posts -

you should not be showing any "trust" for anyone of unknown alignment!

That is foolish, and seems more in the intrests of self-preservation than scumhunting.

Try reading my last post.

I certainly do not believe that your only goal in this play was to "generate discussion". The idea that Glork's gonna use his two votes to quicklynch someone is stupid, but you ARE trying to hide behind another player of unknown alignment. How on earth is this pro-town? Suppose one of you are scum - it instantly casts suspicion on the other one.[/quote]
So if Glork won't misuse the votes, what's the issue?

Like I said, terrible play. At best.

I disagree.

[StallingChamp]

I don't think it's a bad reason. FA took (i think valid) exception to your play.

Please explain your points about how it was bad. Hopefully you will do a better job than FAscum, and not just twist my words and ignore my answers.

[StallingChamp]

I feel that the "twisting my words" representations is a bit dramatic at best, unfounded at worst. Especially after FA's clarification in 45. I see that you two don't agree, but I see no twisting.

If there's some valid word twisting that I'm missing, please enlighten me.

I am thinking it is intentional how he keeps turning "I did it to generate discussion", to "There was a need to proxy the vote".

[StallingChamp]

okay... FA voted you before you came back (i think). So it was based on the initial proxy, which was unusual, somewhat confusing.

He hasn't unvoted yet...

Basically you gave your vote to someone you supposedly don't know and shouldn't trust, just because they are good player.

Like I have said many times, do you honestly think Glork could have gotten away with doing ANYTHING with my vote?

Basically, I think your idea was distracting,

Please explain.

confusing

Ok, now you are either lying or just lazy.

and kinda pointless.

Again, please explain. Like I said, it got us out of the random stage, and into some real discussion on page 1.

I'm finding your comments somewhat scummy, ie. your jumping on FA for voting you.

I did it for his overall reaction, not just the vote. Note that even with my explanation, he has failed to back down or unvote.

I think FA did clarify his reasons pretty well.

So a scum could vote for you because your name ends in "d" as long as he clarifies his reasons pretty well?

My comments in bold

[StallingChamp]

@SC: I wasn't siding with FA because of the initial proxy. I was siding with him because of your subsequent actions, that is, jumping on people who have criticised your idea. What has it done, really? a) put you on side with glork b) most people have said it was strange c) Given you somebody to jump onto for criticising it.

If you want to attack me, fine. Don't side with someone though. Seems like he's trying to be able to blend in with a croud later.

A) I find it odd that Pete D is accusing SC's posts of being scummy while leaving his (random) vote sitting around on DeanWinchester. Sometimes it's indicative of distancing, sometimes it's indicative of scum going after town, occasinally it's indicative of just bad pro-town play. When you move from "random" to "serious," you should almost always take your vote with you.

Yeah, I probably should have done that.

unvote

. I'll drop an

Fos: Amb

(that last post seemed a bit scummy to me).

vote: StallingChamp

Following instructions to look town AND some massive OMGUS all in one! Seems like Glork was right.

I just woke up, I'll try and make more sense later. zzzz

Seems like you're trying to say "Uhhh...let me think this over to get a better story, while posting half-asleep so I don't lurk and so I have an excuse of why the post seems scummy."

Glork was on to something.

Unvote, Vote: pete d

[StallingChamp]

1. FA has already explained and clarified his reasons for voting you. As for your explanation, I still think that you were too keen to attack FA. Surely you expected SOME criticism of your play.

Of course, I expected scum to jump on me and scum did.

2. This is the worst logic I have ever seen.

It was an exageration to show that craplogic is still craplogic even if its explained.

3. and 4. Extreme hypocrisy. Not only have you completely sided with Glork, as shown repeatedly in your posts, but you are also guilty of extreme OMGUSing against FA.

I have not sided with Glork, I share the same opinion as him. I have even outright stated that I don't want Glork to talk for me. As for the OMGUS accusation, I have very good reasons for voting FA. If a scum votes you with poor reasoning, I do not consider it OMGUS to jump on him. As for you, I fail to see any reasoning of your own to vote me.

SC, you look so so scummy to me right now.

You look like scum to me.

Comments in bold. Also, do not quote me and change the quote without explaining that you did please.

[StallingChamp]

Read Glork's past games. He makes statements like that often to show that he feels someone is scum.

[StallingChamp]

Although I trust Glork, I can't/wom't follow him on a hunch he doesnt explain.

Glork, please give reasoning for your vote if you feel that will be more useful than keeping it secret.

[StallingChamp]

Hmmm...I see your point, but I'll think on it some more. Of note - this could be DoS deciding to bus Pete D, but wanting to be able to jump off is he thinks he can redirect it.

[StallingChamp]

Unvote, Vote: DoS

.

Blind following, Doing what most people are doing, and then acting as if he needed to have his vote somewhere, and just put it there for lack of a better spot.

[StallingChamp]

Yeah, Amb is climbing the scummeter quickly. VOTE: Bote: Amb.

[StallingChamp]

I think its telling that you think 8 people are suspicious. Trying to spread the accusations much?

[StallingChamp]

Unvote, Vote: Amb

. Basically admitting to bandwagonning recklessly and to voting just to even up the vote counts.

[StallingChamp]

Wait, when did I say I was scum?

[StallingChamp]

I hope you realize that coming out and

behaving like

a dirty ol' scumbag does not make us less likely to believe that you are a dirty ol' scumbag.

Italics was inferred from your correction, but I may be wrong.

Assuming that "quote" is correct, it makes no sense whatsoever. Why would behaving like scum make people think said person is not scum?

NOTE #1 - Hypothetical, I was not admitting I acted like scum

NOTE #2 - It was a genuine WTF?

[StallingChamp]

Ok, I see that my post was misinterpreted. That was my reasoning for the vote on Amb, not what I was doing. Sorry for the confusion!

[StallingChamp]

Amb's claim seems geniune enough for me. Sorry DoS, but a simple townie claim won't help much, I'm afraid.

Vote: DoS

[StallingChamp]

Sigh,

Unvote; Vote: DoS

[StallingChamp]

No I don't have a name... It just says customer and town aligned

Is the context "you are Customer, a vanilla townie" or "you are a regular customer with no powers"?

[StallingChamp]

The context is you are a customer and your only power is to vote.

Confirm vote: DoS

. This vote will not be moving today, short of any scum coming out. and saying "I'm scum".

[StallingChamp]

I am going to

FoS:StallingChamp

because it almost seems like

he accepts my claim as a townie

but still wants the attention to stay on me.

Exerpt from his post, italics emphasis mine. That it not true, I do not accept your claim at all. I am 99% sure you are scum.

[StallingChamp]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it.

DoS is scum.

Without saying too much, his claim makes me very sure he is scum. I cannot expand without revealing my role, but I will expand further if the town wishes.

[StallingChamp]

Would it be possible to let us know the normal name for DoS's role? I can assume he is Mafia, but knowing if he is a GF or something would be nice...

[StallingChamp]

Amb, in my opinion, reveal it when either you or they are at Lynch -1, whichever comes first.

The problem I have with this is that I'm not sure why the scum would pass up to shoot a (most-likely) unprotected Doc...

[StallingChamp]

Interesting, a claim from Glork...

A few questions for various people:

Glork: - If the town eliminates all the scum, but you are alive (as well as some town), will we both win? Or will it be just you for being alive in the endgame?
- To be honest, "Don't kill me" is pretty standard, and you could have been setting up a claim. Why claim now, when you are no where near a lynch?

Others: - Do any of you have a role name? I don;t want to know the role or the name, just if you have a

Specific

name ("Manager Joe" is specific, "Manager" is not).
- Since I pseudo-claimed yesterday to lynch DoS, does the town want me to come out and fully claim?

[StallingChamp]

Thanks for the response!

A few things, first of all, I see what you mean that most people dont spam "Dont kill me", but I meant that 95% of roles will want to not be killed, in order to help their faction. As for the gambit, its definatively possible, but not too likely, and at this point, I see no reason in pushing that further. I'm not too sure about why claiming Survivor would stop the scum from lynching you, however. To them, you are yet another threat they have to eliminate in order to achieve victory. I'll accept that it may not be in the town's best interest for either A) A mass name-claim to happen, or B) Me to fully claim, so I'll retract both those suggestions.

FrAt - Why vote someone without reason, after quoting a totally unrelated post?

[StallingChamp]

Ditto for SC's half claim.

Since I alreadt responded to Glork, I'll assume you are ok with what I decided to do (drop the idea of fully claiming)?

[StallingChamp]

if my claim is believed (which it will be believed by the scums, and it should be believed by the town), then I put myself in a position to win right here and now.

As (almost?) everybody in this game knows, you are one of (if not the) best scum hunter on this site *points to Scummy award*. Since, in my opinion, the doc should protect Pro-town players, if possible, thus ruling out you, why do you expect that the Scum won't kill you?

[StallingChamp]

I wasn't drilling you, just curious.

[StallingChamp]

The following message does not reflect the views of this poster, the author of this message is merely trying to clarify a previous post.

[quote=TCS meant to say]Yes, you are a bad lynch if you are a Survivor, but a scum might use that logic to save himself from being lynched, so I have small doubts about you.[/quote]

TCS, correct me if I'm wrong.

[StallingChamp]

Damn, message should read as seen below:

The following message does not reflect the views of this poster, the author of this message is merely trying to clarify a previous post.

Yes, you are a bad lynch if you are a Survivor, but a scum might use that logic to save himself from being lynched, so I have small doubts about you.

TCS, correct me if I'm wrong.

[StallingChamp]

I honestly don't know what to think about the PP wagon.

Dean, mind explaining what about Amb is scummy?

[StallingChamp]

After Glork mentioned it, I reread the section where I busted DoS and I think I might have found something.

Did the reread, and I'm on board for a DoS lynch, possibly for the same reason that SC is (although I'm not sure what SC's reason is).

unvote, vote:DoS

This screams that he is just jumping on to try and blend in. Also, am I the only one surprised by the part in brackets? To me, it seems that my reasoning was pretty damn obvious.

[StallingChamp]

After Glork mentioned it, I reread the section where I busted DoS and I think I might have found something.

Did the reread, and I'm on board for a DoS lynch, possibly for the same reason that SC is (although I'm not sure what SC's reason is).

unvote, vote:DoS

This screams that he is just jumping on to try and blend in. Also, am I the only one surprised by the part in brackets? To me, it seems that my reasoning was pretty damn obvious.

You voted for DoS based on the fact that his paraphrase of the vanilla townie role PM was incorrect. I did the same. I don't see what's terribly ambiguous about this series of events except that I didn't want to outright claim townie for the both of us. Now I have.

Only thing is that now you've given yourself the chance to make sure that I was right in pushing it. If you were scum, or say Sk, you wouldn't want to risk going out on a limb when I might have been lying/wrong. I also don't like the claim now.

[StallingChamp]

If CS is faking it, I think it'll be simple to find out. (

note: I am not advocating or asking CS to give any more information at this point. I am saying he will proably be easy to bust or verify before a lynch if need be)

Only thing is I think that in busting DoS, I made it all too clear what any other scum should claim as vanilla.

[StallingChamp]

Not at all, I was comenting that we can't just have me bust all scum claiming 'nilla.

[StallingChamp]

Ok, Dean - what exactly was the result of your inspection of Glork? ("town", "scum", or something else). NO ONE ELSE ANSWER THIS FOR HIM!

[StallingChamp]

Woah, woah woah! That post of TCS reeked of scumminess to me. Comments in bold.

Ask StallingChamp to read my posts in isolation and then tell you if I'm scum.

First of all, why was I dragged into this? Also, I have already said you look VERY scummy. I don't care for your posts in isolation when your posts in context stick out.

pete d, yellowbounder, machiavellian-mafia, now a ranger, does your flavor include a

reason

that you came to McDonald's?

What gives you the right to deduce that we should, in essence, mass-claim? Assuming you are a 'nilla (which is quite the stretch to begin with), what tells you that they may or may not have a reason even if you do or don't. I mean, if the powerroles are managers, for example, it may not say "You are at McDs to work".

Amb, who did you target last night?

Sorry, but why does this matter right now? I think its safe to assume it was either me or Glork, since we led the lynch on DoS. Glork claimed Survivor, make what you want of that, and the town seems to be accepting that, at least for the time being. Maybe I'm being egotistical here (correct me if I am), but I think I am almost 100% confirmed town for how I busted DoS. So if the town accpets that both probable targets are town, why not let Amb keep the target hidden, at least for now?

[StallingChamp]

StallingChamp: lurkerish, seemed really on to Amb at one point. Very possible scum. Tried to vote on Amb and get her lynched instead of DoS when DoS was just a few votes away from Lynch. Not until the end did he seem wanting to lynch doS.

Is it just personal bias, or is this a load of crap?

[StallingChamp]

DoS didn't seem scummy to me. But please remember that we are now looking back with the crystal clear glasses of hindsight, and thus what seems obvious now, didn't seem obvious then.

I don't have time to reread the part in question, but were you not sure about DoS before or after I commented on him?

[StallingChamp]

Your failure you answer my question a posed 2 posts ago is noted.

[StallingChamp]

And StallingChamp, I can find no definitive point where you talked about DoS, you mentioned it before and after my post.

And

Vote: StallingChamp

. Last time I checked, not bothering to read through the thread was bad form, if nothing else. So, my vote visits you.

I think it would be pretty obvious I meant when I busted DoS's claim.

Also, call it OMGUS if you want, but I will

Vote: Yellowbounder

. That post alone pretty much makes me sure you are scum. First of all, I never said I didn't, or wouldn't reread the thread. Turns out I have reread it all several times (some of which I already proved in-thread), I just didn't have time at THAT EXACT TIME. Besides, seems you didn't reread either, since you weren't clear what I meant by commenting on DoS when I flat-out busted him. Also, in all modesty, I'm pretty sure that I am the most confirmed player, and I have reason to believe that it was either Glork or I targetted last night, Glork for his scum-catching skills, me for pretty much proving my innocent.

Also, just a shout out to everyone in general, from how I busted DoS, and with some of the responses, I do consider myself pretty confirmed. If this is wrong, please correct me so that I will stop saying that .

[StallingChamp]

EBWODP: Ok, just saw Glork's post, and that confirms my thoughts in the last sentence.

[StallingChamp]

I'd still rather not move my vote off of YB, but meh.

[StallingChamp]

Pretty sure NAR is just a really bad player.

[StallingChamp]

She claimed manager. If I was Making this game I would make the manager a worthless paranoid/naive cop. (which would also let her know about the poison.)
I get your point Glork. But I don't play follow the Glork. I'm going to make the decisions I feel comfortable with.

Confirm vote: yellowbounder.

You didn't make the game, did you? And yet you managed to think of that on your own. You are not the smartest person in the world, so therefore, PP could also have thought of that.

[StallingChamp]

But any scum will know the poison theme...

[StallingChamp]

StallingChamp

: Voted Blago for voting glork. Proxied his vote, and claims to have done so for conversations sake. If so, it worked. It also started a fight between him and Frozen Atlantic over the motivation of such a move. Glork had a go at Pete d. In Pete d's retalliation he also voted Stalling Champ. At this, Stallingchamp suspiciously announced that Glork was onto something and voted Pete D. Voted me with VOTE: tags for climbing scumometer In one post he votes DoS for "Blind following, Doing what most people are doing" and then in his next post votes me with "Yeah, Amb is climbing the scummeter quickly". He hasnt exactly added to the argument - he really just blindly followed. I dont mind blind follows as I tend to play that way (and or vote without comment) but when you are bussing one player for doing so, and then do so yourself, it does come across as opportunistic. Then when I tried to analyse those on my bandwagons he strangely suggests "...its telling that you think 8 people are suspicious. Trying to spread the accusations much? ". Kind of odd, all I would need is one to defuse my bandwagon. But when a decent number on my bandwagon probably were town what else could I do. Especially when I cant decide which are scum and which are not.

Once I claimed doctor - stallingchamps post nature changed extremely. It went from "Amb is climbing the scummeter" and other indecisive looking posts to 'Amb's claim seems geniune enough for me. Sorry DoS' to 'This vote will not be moving today, short of any scum coming out. and saying "I'm scum".' to 'Exerpt from his post, italics emphasis mine. That it not true, I do not accept your claim at all. I am 99% sure you are scum' to 'I've said it before, but I'll repeat it. DoS is scum. Without saying too much, his claim makes me very sure he is scum. I cannot expand without revealing my role, but I will expand further if the town wishes. ' In my mind this makes me wonder if Stalling champ is in the same scum team. First of all he weakly apologises as though to a scum buddy, but then becomes extremely convinced on the role posting. As he goes on he begins hinting a role himself.

Now - in order for him not to believe DoS, he has to have a town like role that is sufficiently different from DoS's claim for it not to add up. This then would imply he is town and nothing else. He hints at a role a few times and finally comes out with "Since I pseudo-claimed yesterday to lynch DoS, does the town want me to come out and fully claim? ".

To me he is hinting at a power role. I have a power role. Yet I believed dos? Why? DoS claimed townie via "Scared Townie". Fact is I didnt know what a 'normal townies' role looked like. Therefore, Stallingchamp is either a normal townie or a scum. Me as a power townie didnt know what a townie role would look like makes me think another power townie would have a similar problem. But SC implies he has a power role "his claim makes me very sure he is scum. I cannot expand without revealing my role".

I am trying to read through on all players. I just happened to start with StallingChamp since he is player 1 in the game list.

Unless I turn up something pretty impressive with the remaining living, I am probably going to vote him. (Likewise if he can now convince me I am totally wrong about his assertions)

Yeah, that post comes off as very scummy to me. Not only do I think I've confirmed myself, that that post includes lies/distortion of facts.

Once I claimed doctor - stallingchamps post nature changed extremely

People claim to try and save their lives, right? Therefore they are trying to convince people they aren't scum, right? Therefore someone unvoting and backing off after a (good) claim of a power-role is doing what you expected (/hoped), right?

In my mind this makes me wonder if Stalling champ is in the same scum team.

Did you even read how the DoS lynch evolved? He claimed, people started backing off,

then I busted him

. If I had been scum, how could I have assumed that the claim was bad? Why would I push VERY strongly for the lynch of a scumbuddy who seemed to have passed a decent claim.

But SC implies he has a power role

Addition to this, if SC was ordinary townie, his argument would not have been hindered if he said "I am an ordinary townie" this is why I dont believe him, and there would have been no risk to him by saying that

First quote there is wrong. Second is is not true. Please show me where I implyed powerrole at all. Also, claiming vanilla limits the possible powerroles down for the scum, and I would expect you to know that.

FoS:Amb

for now, but it may escalate into a vote later. I do not ant to vote a claimed Doc just yet...

[StallingChamp]

I dont think you are as 'cleared' as you like.

Is that so?

Is the context "you are Customer, a vanilla townie" or "you are a regular customer with no powers"?

The context is you are a customer and your only power is to vote.

Confirm vote: DoS

. This vote will not be moving today, short of any scum coming out. and saying "I'm scum".

Are you claiming I'm psychic and put my ass on the line here, when if I was wrong I would be jumped on by any and all townies?

[StallingChamp]

I'm here. I need to ask CDB something, but I will post as soon as I get a reply from CDB.

[StallingChamp]

I will ask that no one hammers until I have posted something (not saying what just yet) after having talked to CDB. I would also prefer that YB waited, but that's a minor detail to me, so I don't really care.

[StallingChamp]

Okay, a few questions for yellowbounder:

1 - How are you feeling right now (according to your PM)?
2 - What did you want a McDonalds?
3 - What did you do about the threat?

Answer these in your next post.

[StallingChamp]

Yes, I will know after YB's next post.

[StallingChamp]

I feel confidant with a hammer on YB. I think TCS will agree that there were specific things I was going for, and it would have been pretty simple for a Townie to answer the questions bang on.

[StallingChamp]

Should we give YB one more chance? I will ask him to, in his next post, answer the questions again, with

clear, precise answers

.

For the record, I am not sastisfied with how he answered them, so I won't object to a hammer, I just think that maybe (somehow) he didn't know that I wanted him to not beat around the bush, but to answer the questions straight-up.

[StallingChamp]

Before YB answers, do we massclaim now to make scum claim power roles (which are generally testable)?

[StallingChamp]

Well, I don't want to say which question is which (in case a scumbag down the road needs to make this up), but 1 of the 3 was spot-on, 1 of them was actually pretty close, but the last answer I don't like at all. That last one is also, in my opinion, the hardest one to make up.

[StallingChamp]

I was looking over YB's posts, and I came across this one.

Seriously, town.

Stop letting this dude think for you.

It's embarrassing.

Why is Glork quoting this? Is he putting it in context?

You almost look like you are freaked out, is that assesment true? Not that its a bad thing, I'm just wondering.

[StallingChamp]

YB, please answer if you were freaked out at that time.

[StallingChamp]

Oh, and in case it wasnt obvious, I'm not going to pass judgement either way on YB until he answers the question flat-out. I think he was implying an answer in his last post, but I want a straight-out, answer, so that we can have it down in writing.

One more time YB, Are/were you freaked out when you posted that?

[StallingChamp]

SIDENOTE: fixed!

On topic, I like a YB lynch now. I do not wish to expand too much on why, but hope that others (some, not all) can see where I am coming from with this.

[StallingChamp]

Sorry, but which 2 posts? I just want to make sure before I spend a while checking them.

[StallingChamp]

From what I see (as a Townie), he is not a Townie.

[StallingChamp]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it was a good claim. Unfortunately for him, I think it was relatively easy to make that claim, but he missed a large thing (which you caught onto right away). I am still happy with a YB lynch. He's either scum or innatentive Townie, with much more likelyhood of the former.

[StallingChamp]

I agree. He claimed Townie, made a reasonable claim, but then got busted.

[StallingChamp]

Why the drastic change in 12 minutes? You thought he was Mafia, I agreed with you, and now you think he might be town? Anyways, I am pretty sure that YB is scum. If I had to give a percentage, I would say 90% likely to be scum, with 9% being innatentive townie. 1% differance is for any other possibilities.

[StallingChamp]

As much as I hate to say this, I will anyways. I am pretty (read:99%) sure that only a Townie would see what I saw.