A Roccisi Winter - Game Over

[Sanhora]

Vote Tubby

[Sanhora]

Not interested. Two reasons:
-I likez bandagon on Tubby.
-bad articles.

[Sanhora]

Sure, it's very likely that scum can't dominate it (Not unlikely. Though you seem sure this is the case. Any reason why?), but it does give them the opportunity to hide. Either within the pact, outside the pact or the pact being a huge distraction. In other words, it giing something to talk about isn't useful if it's not the right thing to talk about.
I'm glad that you can see that the third point is only valid this day and perhaps one or a few days more. However, your plan is for the pact to be in play the whole game.
I don't see how it make it easier for players to slip.

Short stated, I think it will be a huge distraction as many arguments will be pro-pact or anti-pact, instead of focusing on those players inside pro-pact or anti-pact. It also divides the town into two.

I'm still against it.

[Sanhora]

Once again, at the start perhaps. However, your rules don't work together, Tubby.
The only thing that I can agree with is that it's highly unlikely that the scum will dominate it. But they still have something to say if they are in it.

[Sanhora]

Holy cow, everybody should vote tubby asap. That whole "pact" thing is ridiculus.

vote: tubby216

If it's so scummy to you, how come no comment about it in your last post?

[Sanhora]

@Benmage
In post 34, you state that you like to policy lynch millers D1. Yet no support for this one and in the Dark Goma, there was also a miller claim. But you commented very late on it. So what's up with that?

Gotta love the directing of a possible vig. Scummy from Adel.

@Tate
Gotta love what you're doing in post 99/101. Asking a question to Kyle that makes him scummy no matter what. Good scummy job from you.
Please elaborate on what you mean with:

@Borge- I agree that you should not last very long in this game but I thank you for coming forward with your role,

it helps our town PRs some tonight on who they should target.

If this wasn't a game in which you could day-talk, the soft-hinting towards Tubby would have been bad as well.
But the next post afterwards is scummy as well. Criticising a wagon you were thinking to join and then not looking at the wagoners is scummy.

@Cobalt
In post 137, you name 3 players who you would like to see lynched. Yet, you had no vote on one of them at that time. How come?

@Ecto
In post 139, you talked about two posts in general. One which is written by Tubby about his top 3 scummy looking players and a list of players he wants to keep and a post in which Adel states that he prefers +/- 5 lynches today. In between, there's the Adel VS Orto stuff, which you don't mention in this post. But you do mention it in your next post and vote Orto due to it. Why didn't you talk about it in your first post?

@Orto
Ok, I'm confused. In post 141 it seems that you do understand why some players voted Tubby for his pact suggestion. Yet, you think it's scummy to vote Tubby for it. What am I missing?
Also, it's interesting that you back-down from the Adel thingy after being called out on it and even seem to think that it's not something that's important. And last, explain this:

me picking two scum players without even seeing the posts of one of them, in my first post of the game

Neopi's vote was bad already, but got worse after seeing post 164. Because get what? There's no pact. And it seems nobody is interested in one, except for Tubby. Yet, Neopi wants to take care of 'the problem'. What does that leave us? Neopi with a policy vote without a valid reason, aka lazy scum.

@Socrates
In post 179, you're wrong. Try read Bogre's reasons again to find what he truly thinks is scummy about Tubby.
As for post 200, good job trying to gain townie points in case Bogre flips town, which I think he will.

@Tate
You already had the miller reason against Bogre. You only voted him in post 198 though. Why not sooner?
A question: Why not reveal your alt now if you're willing to reveal it at the end of the game?
Last, but not least, I loved your slip:

The only possible excuse I see, is if you are scum and just bussing me for an easy lynch...

Mind telling who, Tate?

Sopianae in post 222 activates my gut.


Caught up. First of all,

Unvote; Vote Tate

obv.
Other scummy players include Nhammen, Neopi, Pyotr, Cobalt and one more.
Positive on four players being town.

[Sanhora]

5 seems high to me. Remember that there'll most likely be other kills at the end of the day on top of the lynches. If we're looking at 5 total kills being ideal, then 3 lynches would probably suffice.

I disagree. We need 5 wagons for analysis.

We can leave the miler alive to soak up vig kills so that we don't have to worry about mis-vigging making the results of mislynching even worse

. Besides a miller mislynch doesn't help determine anyone else's alignment, it is about as much low-information-density wagon as is possible in this game.

I am willing to compromise at 4 lynches, but 3 is definitely too few.

The bolded is why, Iam. If I remember correctly, Adel was the only one who supports a vig kill against the miller, but not a lynch.

[Sanhora]

@Cobalt
In post 137, you name 3 players who you would like to see lynched. Yet, you had no vote on one of them at that time. How come?

hadn't settled on anyone yet

Question: Does that matter?
You knew at that time we could use multiple lynches each day. So you could support one and either switch before that lynch or afterwards. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

I feel Adel is ignoring me. Any reason for that?
And Adel, why didn't you post a list of lurkers?

Post 265 (Posted by SB) activates my gut due to the last sentence.

Post 267 from Ecto is just scummy. Controlling lynches is bad. It also should be pointed out that Ecto first wants a lurker gone, but the VC doesn't reinforce this statement. There's one more thing which makes this post even worse.
Also, why don't you want a policy lynch against Tate?

The same thing of supporting a lynch all lurkers as first lynch that I mentioned at Ecto, goes for Cobalt as well.
Also a question: You agree with Ecto's plan. Yet Ecto doesn't want a Tate policy lynch and asked it to be dropped. What's up with that?

Seems Tate is ignoring me as well. Want to state why?

@Socrates
In post 341, you stated that Adel asking for lurkers is a little bit over the top. So why are you willing to give a list who you think is lurking?

And Orto, you're not alone regarding your Ecto suspicions.

[Sanhora]

Thanks for confirming that you've been ignoring my posts, Adel. Now I'm really curious what's up with that.
Also, now that you've stated that you have a reason for suspecting somebody, why aren't you stating what that case is?
Lastly, why do you think that if there's a possible second scumteam that they'd know who your neighbour is?

[Sanhora]

EBWOP:
Do not agree with your list, with the exception of perhaps one.

[Sanhora]

And Cobalt also decides to ignore me.
Anyway, Cobalt, what for scummy things have Bogre done? Because I can't find anything in your posts about them and he wasn't on your scumlist.

@Neopi
What info would the Bogre wagon give according to you that other wagons don't?
Also, why do you trust a player who could be scum?

[Sanhora]

Sickish
Hope to be back soonish as I'm feeling better than before. But right now, I just want to stay in bed.

So ,

Mod: I'll be a little bit V/LA

[Sanhora]

Backish. Will slowly update this game to make sure it's done after the holidays (This saturday/sunday) I don't think my parents would like it if I take my labtop to church to write about who we should kill

[Sanhora]

Very busy getting caught up in this game.
But I've got one answer I'd like to hear an answer to right now.
Adel: Did you post a paraphrasing of what Benmage has posted in the QT already? If so, where? If not, how come?

[Sanhora]

Finally, my catch-up post (Starting from page 16)

Post 385, made by Ecto, is pathetic. First of, in his response to Nhammen, he states that if Nhammen doesn’t like the way he (Ecto) plays, he (Nhammen) should policy lynch him. Yet, later on in this post, he states that policy lynching Tate isn’t based on his alignment. The same can be said about policy lynching Ecto based upon his playstyle.
Secondly, he should have seen that I was the one who shared Orto’s opinion. And he should have known why I do. But instead of looking back who it was and why he stated it, he soft-attacks that player.
Last, his ‘defence’ against Orto is just scummy.

As for Tubby in post 386, in which we once again get a list of players from him. If you wonder about the ‘again’, see post 127. Anyway, what do we see? In both lists, the claimed miller is listed as a player he’d like to see lynched. Now for the secret: He hasn’t voted for the claimed miller at any time. (This is the moment where we all *gasp*). Explained. So now I want to know why you want to hammer.
I also would like to hear what happened to Orto and Tate as they were present on your first list, but not on the second.

Neopi’s reason for wanting to lynch the claimed miller sucks. If you can’t see why when looking at post 389/391, his reason is about future games and has nothing to do with this game.

Wow. Pyotr asks the most intelligent question ever in post 394 [/sarcasm]. Is this normal behaviour from you?

If one of Tate or Ecto/Phate is scum, the other is as well.

Ecto should have explained the reason behind post 399 regarding the last paragraph. I do not see this as town behaviour.

@Adel
Please state how you think this set-up is made up as I don’t see how you think that a possible second scumteam can find out who your neighbour is from that list.

Orto, please elaborate on what’s scummy to you about post 371.

Post 419 seems a serious distraction from scumhunting. Ecto should have explained why it’s important to him to hear the voices from other players about how to lynch, instead of whom to lynch.

Yes, Cobalt, I asked you a question. See the top of post 358.
Add two more questions after having seen post 424:
If you were a miller and if you’d have claimed miller right at the start of the game, wouldn’t you have fought for your life if the others wanted to lynch you and why?
Is disagreeing a scumtell and why?

@Pyotr
In post 427, you give your list of players. Can you elaborate on the first 6, minus Charter (And Cobalt)?
Also, did I read it correct? Did you use the ‘too scummy to be scum’ fallacy in post 437, Pyotr?

@Adel
I’m not sure if I can call Charter a model of scumhunting, but I do agree that he’s scumhunting. If you disagree, please show why for a change.

Regarding post 448, Socrates, does this mean you disagree with Charter that accusing players of lurking two/three days after the game has started is too much and why?

Kyle needs to explain why he voted Neopi in detail, why he hasn’t been active here, while being active in other game(s?) and he should respond to the other questions asked of him.

Post 473 from Orto activates my gut.

Post 482 from Annachie is just bad. First of all, the switch away from Tubby, a player who he thinks is scum. His reason for doing so is because he thinks this wagon has lost its steam. In other words, we’re dealing with an excuse to please the town here.
His vote against Bogre is also bad. Part of it is because he barely mentioned it before. The only post where he does is this post.

And once again, Ecto posts a proposal that helps scum in post 520. What he’s basically proposing is a system that lets the more favoured cases get more attention and the lesser ones none. Meaning that the scum can easily influence the lynch by supporting the cases that are useful to them.

Post 537 made by Benmage was good. But then I read the last paragraph and it got a scummy post fast.

Nhammen, in post 546, you state that something is off about Annachie’s wagon. If you think so, then why aren’t you looking at it?

Benmage, regarding post 560, you state that it should be ‘obv’ that you’re town as you’re suicidal. So what do you make of Adel who wants to be policy lynched D2 who is according to you scum?

Cobalt is either not paying attention or scum trying to gain advantage of the situation.

Anna, about post 637, some questions:
-Why mention the name of your neighbourhood?
-What would Benmage objective be to ask you about the link if he’s scum and knew about what you’ve said?
-Why didn’t you vote in this post, while doing so in the next?
Though Benmage response to that post is scummy. Only asking if it’s a type of claim. Not liking that. And what’s up with asking him to claim later on?

Anna, can you elaborate which posts made you curious in a miller policy lynch?


@Adel
Why did you ask if you were allowed to attempt to bait your neighbour into getting himself modkilled?
Also, you state that you asked Benmage to ask Tajo some questions. Part of your suspicions against Benmage comes that he was stalling to ask these questions. What’s the advantage for Benmage-scum to do so? And if he hasn’t asked them, have you? If not, why not?
As for you wanting to be lynched D2, have you done this in a different game or not? If not, why the change?

Post 789 from Nhammen is so fake that it hurts.

@Pyotr
Want to link to some scum games of yours (Or as Crypto)?

@Anna
Please elaborate why Kyle’s actions make more sense to come from underaged newbtown than from underaged newbscum.

Though Rofl should read the topic, I agree with him about Ecto’s responses especially after looking at Ecto’s ‘scumhunting’ in this game.
Speaking about Ecto, everybody should look at post 824. Why? Because Ecto would like to tell when we should policy lynch and when not when you’re looking at that post. But as Ecto isn’t present, I’ll quote it for you guys. All you have to do is look at post 824 and note Ecto Scum.

Someone else (I think Orto) needs a lesson in policy lynching too. Why Millers and Lurkers and not Tate? Millers claims and Lurkers policy lynches are based in the fact that scum use them for their purposes and thus are alignment based lynches, where Tate being Tate has no more likelyhood of being scum than any other player in this game and thus would not be an alignment based policy lynch.

@Adel
You’re still exchanging PM’s with the mod? I thought you would know by now as it seems from post 871 that you’ve received a PM once from the mod (You said ‘According to our mod’). Not only that, it was you who pointed out to Benmage that you need to PM the mod for questions, yet it was Benmage who has his answer already.
P.S. Thanks for telling Benmage. Please elaborate why you haven’t paraphrased against Adel’s case.

[Sanhora]

In other words (Due to it being a very, very, very, very, very, ..., very big post), a scumlist:
Phate
Nhammen
Tate
Neopi
Benmage and/or Adel
Annachie
Pyotr
Kyle

If you think I've missed your name, please tell me and I'll add it if that's the case. (It's not based upon a rank/list/something else of such kind)

Unvote; Vote Kyle