Claimed scum?
xvart.
True, I am not psychic; but I have always considered myself to have above average intelligence; regardless, it didn't take a degree in advanced cryptography to decipher this encrypted message:Drippereth wrote:xvart also picked up Elscouta scum - as quickly as I have. Except that I'm psychic and he's not, which makes him the other buddy.
But I applaud your efforts to make something out of nothing.Elscouta wrote:Hi, scumbuddy!
I didn't random vote; therefore, by your logic, I am not scum. Thanks for clearing me of your own suspicions.Elmocrates wrote:Lets try and take this in a different direction. When you consider the fact that not random voting almost always without fail draws suspicion on the perpetrator, why in the world would scum not random vote?
In other news: Xvart is my first scum suspect.
I don't see any thing in claiming scum/scumbuddies to be inherently town. I don't have any statistics to back anything up, but the WIFOM makes me sick just thinking about it.Elmocrates wrote:CyberBob/xvart: Why do you think scum are (not) more likely to joke about being scum?
Well for starters it shows I'm serious about it; and second, there seems to be a leading bandwagon going so I think that is useful scrutiny.Elmocrates wrote:xvart: How exactly is just throwing a vote out applying useful scrutiny?
Nice analogy. So you are saying that claiming scumbuddies has as much inherent significance as saying your name to each post? You are suggesting that claiming scumbuddies is as anti-town/scummy as signing each post? Are you saying that people should be just as suspicious of me for signing each post as I am for suspecting someone that claims scumbuddies?!Elmocrates wrote:There's nothing in signing your name at the bottom of each post that's inherently town, either - that's obviously not sufficient to suspect someone. It has to be, you know, actually suspicious. Do you find it suspicious?
Nice oversimplification of what I said. I'm not disputing or complaining about the fact that there might be scum or there might be town in this game. I'm talking about someone saying "I'm scumbuddies" in the first post, and then being defended by "He can't possibly be scum, why would scum do something stupid like that."Elmocrates wrote:Someone might be scum, or they might be town. If that's sickening, Mafia must be very tough on you, no? What exactly do you dislike so much?
My apologies. Perhaps I should have said pressure instead of scrutiny. I wasn't going to come out guns a'blazing for something, because as you've gone out of your way to point out, there may possibly be nothing to it. A pressure vote is fine with me and I didn't feel I needed to start an interrogation since it would probably illicit a response in and of itself. More votes started coming in and that was fine with me; in fact I was glad to see it since Elscouta hadn't responded yet.Elmocrates wrote:I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him and did nothing further. You must have a very strange definition of scrutiny if it's met by starting a bandwagon on someone and then just sitting there. How far do towards lynch do you think the bandwagon should go before you deign to ask him a question or something? You know - scrutinise him.
That was easy enough.Elscouta wrote:Hmm. "scumbuddy" referred to the fact that Cobalt and me were scumbuddies in Precision Mafia that just finished.
Maybe I just didn't care why you think I'm scummy? I didn't realize you would need to be prompted to further explain your page two case on me. I was also told during my first game here that I shouldn't respond to everything as it makes me look scummy. So I chose not to respond since I really don't care that someone simply states "xvart is my first suspect with nothing else other than some stuff about people who don't random vote can't be scum." Whoopty Doo.Elmocrates wrote:I would also just like to note that xvart never did ask why I had voted him, which I find very weird. Did he not need to be told why he was scummy?
I upgraded my FoS to a vote since he was essentially the one that planted the seed about how voting for a claimed scum is scummy.farside22 wrote:xvart: Why the vote on Drippereth?
farside22 wrote:xvart: I think tries to hard to make something that was said in jest into something serious. He talks about it as WIFOM in regards to whether scum would blantantly out themselves. Seriously people are tht dumb as scum?
It wasn't a random vote. I never said it was. So I should have not said anything and just sat at my computer, and reflected on how I should have cast a stupid vote for someone for some stupid reason instead of voting for a claimed scum? I don't know what your win condition is, but I'm here to scumhunt so I'll post my justificationsIecerint wrote:I think the scummiest thing to happen so far is xvart's insistence that his vote on Els was "non-RVS" after being challenged on the issue. It looks like he felt compelled to justify himself rather than reflect on his position.
Kmd4390 wrote:Because they know that town is going to realize that no scum in their right mind would do it, so the player who does it must be town. So you do it for town points.
No, but I think people who are town arefarside22 wrote:In your opinion people are scum automatically for saying hey scum buddy?
With all things being equal, if the top two scummy people (one of them being Elscouta in this example) are of equal scumminess this would have no effect on your vote?farside22 wrote:If he acts scummy later then I will go on that. Not a hey scum buddy comment.
Perhaps I was a little hasty in generalizing you and Kmd. I suppose I did slightly misrepresent you as yourfarside22 wrote:Someone knows how to misrepresnt the point completely, be snarky and get OMGUS all in one. Awesome you make me even more happy with my vote.x wrote:I'm glad I now know how to get a foolproof membership card to the town club house for future games.
Examples?Elscouta wrote:Xvart is using bad logic and wrong analogies in most of his posts, but i'm not sure if it is town bad logic or scum one.
You realized that I needed more pressure based on the soundness of the arguments presented (which you have not read) or the lack of appropriate responses on my part (which you wouldn't know)? How do you justify your realization?ooba wrote:I entered the game - looked at the most recent post with a vote count - saw who had the most votes - looked at number of votes to lynch and realized he could use some more pressure ..Elscouta wrote:- @Ooba: Nice way to enter in the game by voting for the largest wagon. Would you care to say a bit more?
I was just a simple hypothetical question, trying to gauge if someone claiming scum on the first day has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your "scum scope."farside22 wrote:I don't see Elscouta as scummy right now so the point in this is what?
I don't find you annoying at all.farside22 wrote:I'm quiet annoying that way.
I believe that someone that is town aligned would be significantly less likely to claim scumbuddies. If someone is significantly less likely to be town, then that person is significantly more likely to have a different win condition than the town. At the time of my vote, I did not consider that the person in question had just finished a game with the person he claimed as a scumbuddy in which they actually were scumbuddies.Elmocrates wrote: So apparently you suspect him because he did something that isn't inherently town. That's a crappy reason to suspect someone, because some things that aren't inherently town (like signing your name) are obviously not suspicious. I asked you to explain to me why you found it suspicious, and you haven't done that. Please do so.
It is not that I think scum are necessarily more likely to joke about being scum; but I believe that town is less likely than scum to joke about it. Additionally, scum couldn’t be that stupid to do something like that, so it could give the perfect cover for a scum to slide through like that.Elmocrates wrote:xvart: Why do you think scum are more likely to joke about being scum?
I was not the only one confused by your analogy; but I suppose I just incorrectly equated “not inherently town” to “scummy.”xvart wrote: No. You can tell I'm not saying this because I didn't say it
Kmd and debatably, FarsideElmocrates wrote: Please name the people who have said that he can't possibly be scum.
Jack wrote:unvote, vote:CyberBob
For being rude among other things
You're surprised that no one joins in your suspicion of someone being scum based on how rude he is? What are the "among other things?" You felt it was only important to mention the rudeness but not the other things?Jack wrote:You guys don't find cyberbob scummy at all?
Yuck.Iecerint wrote:By Elmo's logic, cops should claim D1, because protective roles will be able to find them, anyway.
Was there a time when Cobalt started posting something other votes? Did he come out of his shell later in the game? Was he helpful and achieving the town win condition?Jack wrote:Cobalt isn't particularly playing different from the game I saw him as town in.
Are you talking about CKD and SPS since they did not provide info behind their vote?Jack wrote:I wanted to see what they thought about him, since they were voting me after my talk+vote. i.e., had they been reading before voting or were they just jumping on?Papa Zito wrote: Still curious about what those two have to do with CyberBob.
How did I misrepresent you? I didn't even make a direct comment about you or say Budja does this or Budja does that. A little defensive?Budja wrote:You can't help but misrep, can you.xvart wrote:I would be interested in running up another wagon and see if Budja jumps on it, too.
To which wagon(s) are you referring?MehPlusRawr wrote:Wagoning may not be a scumtell, but pushing a pointless wagon is anti-town, and wagoning instead of scumhunting is anti-town. :X
Sorry if I missed your question somewhere. Town would be less likely to do it because it draws unnecessary scrutiny for something that gains no benefit; and, despite that scrutiny it can easily be brushed off by saying "no scum would do that." Basically I believe it is an avoidable but easily dismissed scrutiny that would have more benefit to scum if they passed.Elmocrates wrote:I still have yet to receive anything resembling an explanation for this. Why are town less likely to do that, and why do scum want "cover" to "slide through" by doing something that (apparently) does nothing but attract attention?xvart wrote:It is not that I think scum are necessarily more likely to joke about being scum; but I believe that town is less likely than scum to joke about it. Additionally, scum couldn’t be that stupid to do something like that, so it could give the perfect cover for a scum to slide through like that.
Rereading I just realized that this comment I attacked Kmd was not in reference to the scum buddies but random voting instead, so it is now obvious to me that I did drastically misquote Kmd. My apologies and a full retraction.Kmd4390 wrote:Because they know that town is going to realize that no scum in their right mind would do it, so the player who does it must be town. So you do it for town points.
Farside - Are you saying that typically her active lurking is scum motivated or active lurking is scum motivated in general. How does her play in this game compare to games where she actively lurked?farside22 wrote:I've seen elf actively lurk. Typically it's scum motivated. This doesn't feel like her normal scum play.
Starbuck - do you think at least one of them is scum?Starbuck wrote:Or we can just lynch both of em and be done with it.
Generally speaking, yes; but I have seen otherwise.Cobalt wrote:faking daykills is supertown
Sorry I'm so boring...Jack wrote:I checked one of xvart's other games (over) but got bored partway through reading his ISO which I'll take as a sign that I should be paying attention to someone else.
It was more of an observational post, rather than a real "experiment;" regardless, at the time of my post, Budja had already set himself up to jump on the two next largest wagons (Jack and Cyberbob) either by direct statement or FoS's so running up Jack's wagon wouldn't really do anything for my suggested "experiment."curiouskarmadog wrote:interesting statement...this REALLY is sticking out to me. At this point post (289) Jack has 4 votes. Cobalt just has 2. You express suspicion on Jack in the post with an FOS, but you vote cobalt instead? So why not vote Jack to "run up a wagon" and see if Bud jumps on it?xvart wrote:I would be interested in running up another wagon and see if Budja jumps on it, too.
I don't really see what you are trying to say. He didn't respond to my wagon statement other than saying I was misrepresenting him. Furthermore, he didn't "call me" on the content of my post, which you seem to think he did. My response to him was about him claiming I was misrepresenting him, not the wagon comment or him being "wagon happy." I didn't misrepresent him at all. He should know himself that he has been very vocal about liking several wagons, FoS's on all the leading wagons, the temptations of switching wagons, etc. How is me saying I was curious to run up another wagon and see if he was going to get on it misrepresenting anything? Do you think his post in response to mine is a sufficient rebuttal? He didn't refute anything other than saying his vote hasn't moved in ages.Jack wrote:You were basically full of it? i.e. you were clearly accusing him of being wagon happy, but we he called you on that claim you tried to dodge it and accuse him of being defensive.
I didn't evasively do anything; and of course there was motivation behind the original statement. I left it where I did about not making a direct comment because I was trying to get Budja to explain exactly how I was misrepresenting him. I didn't in direct content because I didn't make any literal statements about him. The only thing that could even remotely be misconstrued as misrepresentation would be the assumption of wagon hopping, which I was hoping to get him to respond to. He was very unclear and made no support on how I misrepresented him, and given my poor track record of misrepresenting people so far this game I wanted it to be clear that I wasn't doing it again. I believe he was trying to undercut me by throwing out the buzz word "misrep" and "xvart" in the same sentence since those two words have become synonymous in the early day one game.Jack wrote:You evasively claimed that you "hadn't made a direct comment" about him or said "Budja does this or that". But by your own admission you were accusing him of jumping on wagons scummily and for no reason (don't try and claim that you were just matter of factly pointing it out, this is mafia).
Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black?FeFiFoFum wrote:We are 26 pages in and I don't see a solid case built on anyone. I am ashamed of the lack there of scum hunting. Lets go peoples.
Is that because the last time you posted the wagon was on me?FeFiFoFum wrote:Okay I liked the Xvart train better than the xtalt
See above...J-Scope wrote:FeFiFoFum: why do you think xvart is scum? Details, details!
After announcing in all my games (those not locked) that I would have limited access I only posted twice in the newbie game I am in before saying in all the games (those not locked) I would be back and post that night. All the other posts you are referring to came after I got back, and I didn't get to this one before it got locked (as I explained above). How does my decision on which game to start posting in first after coming back reflect on my alignment in this game?Iecerint wrote:While it's true that xvart was apparently gone for the past several days, he nonetheless posted decent content in his other games during this game's D2. He chose those games over this one for some reason. His decision reflects poorly on his alignment in this game IMO. I'd encourage players to review the posts with msutils, because I think their content is not irrelevant to this analysis.
So you think it is appropriate to build cases on others based on how you prioritize games?Iecerint wrote:It's based on introspection. I personally have a habit of (barring special circumstances) avoiding my scumgames relative to my towngames. (I also ignore VT games relatively more, but your posts imply that that does not parsimoniously explain your behavior IMO.)
I fail to see how unless you are in my mind or know my alignment in every single one of the games I'm playing. You are making a lot of assumptions including:Iecerint wrote:I'm not disputing that you posted relatively few times, or that your lack of access was legitimate. I'm pointing out that your time management choices reflect poorly on your alignment.
Because I think that we will learn a lot more about the Elscouta flip than FFFF. FFFF's behavior, to me, seems like a lyncher. I just saw the exact same thing happen in a game that just finished (only it was successful). I think it is pretty clear that FFFF did not share the town win condition and I believe he had his own personal win condition so (if true) it would be much more difficult to sift through who was scum on his wagon. Since Escouta was also raising suspicion to people yesterday I am more interested in his flip and those people at the moment. I am also inclined to think that Escouta was a vig target last night based on the previous days events.Starbuck wrote:Why?xvart wrote:I'm thinking maybe we should destroy Escouta instead of FFFF.
I didn't feel the need to voice my priority list of what games I respond to at what time because the foundation for your case is so ludicrous. You made a blanket statement about my posting habits based on your posting habits, which is flimsy at best. There could also be a thousand different reasons for posting in one game over another, none of which I can prove so what is the point? I didn't really feel like getting in a "he said/he said" debate about my unprovable motivations.Iecerint wrote:That's a possibility, but you'll note that he didn't voice as much; he also didn't dispute the accuracy of my assumption, even if he attacked it for being an "assumption."
Well, since your case on me was based on your scum playing habits I didn't really see the necessity of explaining my actual behavior and prioritizing strategy since it seemed irrelevant. I also didn't feel the need to justify your ridiculous case with "evidence" that I can't prove in game.Iecerint wrote:The town response to my criticism would have been something like what Starbuck mentioned -- that you put this one off because it's a Large rather than a Mini.
Point taken. It was my intention to post in games (as I said in non-locked threads). I wasn't on a business trip or at a conference or at a funeral or anything like that. I was visiting my sister and thought I would have plenty of downtime, which turned out to not be the case.Starbuck wrote:Xvart - my one issue with you is that if you go V/LA. You are V/LA from all your games. You don't pick and choose.
This isn't what Iecerint is accusing me of and I want to make it clear before the two get muddled; but since you brought it up...Starbuck wrote:I did use msutils.net and see that you hadn't posted in this game since Sunday, April 11th, but you had enough time to post in your other games all last week, which was more than just posting in your Newbie game as you previously state. You have 19 posts in those other games before the Newbie one starts on Thursday.
Was there any flavor in your kill notice?farside22 wrote:yay I'm back. So to answer a few questions. No I don't kill myself and I was not informed who killed me. Reading yesterday FFF was clearly lying.
This game was locked at the time.Iecerint wrote:My recollection is that he posted in other games just before his V/LA
This game was locked.Iecerint wrote:...and he posted in other games just after his V/LA.
This game was locked.Iecerint wrote:He didn't post in this game immediately before the V/LA...
This game was locked. Check the post progression timestamp of the two games right before the time this thread was locked.Iecerint wrote:...and he didn't post in this game immediately after the V/LA (well, he says he was cut off by the thread closing, which is plausible, but he appears to have had a 1.5 hour window).
I didn't have anything to say as the SensFan/Xoelf divorce court concluded.Starbuck wrote:You had time between your post on the 11th and when the thread locked on the 13th. You have 6 posts in other games during this time.
As I have said, I did have some time, but obviously not enough for every game, and not as much as I originally thought.Starbuck wrote:You also had time between when the thread unlocked on the 15th and when it locked on the 18th. You had 2 posts on the 16th in other games.
Maybe because there was a cluster fuck of posting with a significant number of pages and I really didn't have the time?Starbuck wrote:Why would'nt you have stopped in here while you were on the site during those times?
The point of destroy is knowing alignment/role name so I don't see how FFFF being banned would change anyone's opinion about destroying/knowing his alignment.Papa Zito wrote:@Mod: Given the Mufasa/FFFF ban, can we wipe those destroy votes plz?
Which might give more credibility to Drippereth's post.Cobalt wrote:is anyone else not feeling the usual minty-fresh obvtown aura spyrex usually exudes?
Reasoning for voting? It sounds like you are still satisfied with the D1 case or is there more to it now?Kmd4390 wrote:revote xvart. Just realized I had a bad reason for unvoting.
Except it was seen as a town tell so the basis behind it is fairly flimsy...Steam-Powered Shovel wrote:Zito is town because he PM'd Plum to complain about his reads. He wouldn't do it as scum and I doubt he'd lie about it expecting someone to see it as a towntell.
Are you suggesting that Zito is actively trying to hunt out scum factions by getting hints from the mod?Kmd4390 wrote:He could be a scum looking for another scum group and having a hard time finding them.
I asked this way back on D1 and never got a legitimate response. I'm still befuddled...Starbuck wrote:Can someone explain the case on SPS?
SpyreX wrote:If it goes the way of Ice I'm not going to cry (and it'll make me feel a lot better about Budja / Jack - Jack especially).
So, whatever is clever.
Seriously, does the half asserted, quaint statements make it appear to be scumhunting or does it distract from everyone else that you don't have to back anything up because of the poetical nature?SpyreX wrote:My issues with SPS are far more visceral. There's a SECRET TELL as well.
What are you saying? That if the lynch goes in Iec's direction you won't care? And, if the wagon goes that way you'll feel better about Budja and Jack (especially Jack). Does it even matter what Iec flips? It doesn't sound like it to me.SpyreX wrote:If it goes the way of Ice I'm not going to cry (and it'll make me feel a lot better about Budja / Jack - Jack especially).
This is an interesting thought. I think I'll go back and look at the biggest wagon pushers. Do you have any further thoughts, or just that SPS is scum and his buddies were trying to save him?farside22 wrote:I'm starting to look back at day 1 and wonder if those pushing the elf lynch were doing so to save SPS.
So regarding the post in question you deny that you had set yourself up to jump onto one of the top three wagons at the time?Budja wrote:@xvart, 1. youweremisrepping me,
And now two of those people are on your "unbreakable alliance" without hardly a second eye bat. This is at the least mildly disconcerting to me.SpyreX wrote:Its a function of the power-votes Jack got when I was arguing with him in rapid succession: Budja, Ice, Sociopath were waay too fast for me to think that the combination of those three + the target (Jack) are all going to be town.
This is what I'm still trying to work out. I certainly don't know you and Zito's background of playing together and whether or not this is typical fair, but right now I'm leaning towards you being scum attempting to create a faction loyal followers under the guise of "pro town behavior". What's your best course of action going to be? Kill one of your scum partners to increase the stock in your alliance? Only hunt the other scum faction, if there is one?SpyreX wrote:Who, in this great tangled mess, is the "scum buddying with town?"
Is it PZ the perpetrator of the initial idea buddying with me?
Is it I who took that first huge step and laid out my feelings?
Is it both of us, scum powers unite, pulling all the stops and working this out together as a method to buddy with that whole group?
Actually, I said I'mSpyreX wrote:Keep in mind that xvart says I'm the scum for doing this. Specifically, for setting it up for pro-town cred.
That could be important later.
HeatSpyreX wrote:No no. Heat from him. Not ON him.
SpryreX - let me see if I can be more clear. I'm assuming by "heat" you mean a level of tenacity in defending oneself (at least that is the context I am reading in the original statement). Is that correct? Is there an expected level of return heat typically associated with a town-aligned person when being bandwagoned? Or is it an expected level of heat from a town aligned SPS that is the cause of your furthered suspicion?SpyreX wrote:I have absolutely NO idea what xvart is going on about.
I I've been reading back for a while and let me see if I have the case on SPS right (outside of the... wait for it...SpyreX wrote:Yes there should be some heat. Or anything besides "is this just because I'm playing how I play?"
If town and you're getting a wagon on you you damn well should be able to analyze it. DOUBLY so if you legitimately think you've done no wrong.
And the result should never be just a shrug of the shoulders.
What I was getting at is the fact that you had already cast suspicion on SPS (in a FoS and saying his posts are scummy for a different, as of then, un-described reason) and then you sayIecerint wrote:I don't understand your next question. IIRC, I thought the scummiest/most opportunistic Jack voters were CKD and SPS. (I think I thought CKD was particularly bad because he joined Jackwagon while supporting sketchyCB once people were saying they found CB town. SPS was due to relatively poor reasoning for the switch + lackluster play elsewhere.)
When did the CB wagon become sketchy?Iecerint wrote:(I think I thought CKD was particularly bad because he joined Jackwagon while supporting sketchyCB once people were saying they found CB town.
Leaning. Slightly. Scum. I find some of the people on his wagon much more scummy.SpyreX wrote:Xvart:
SPS: Scum, Town.
I want one simple word.
Is it so hard to imagine that ScumA is trying to string up ScumB in this situation? That's what I'm trying to figure out. The wagon is weak, but not completely unfounded. I'd rather put the fire under some of the people that have been advocating it asSpyreX wrote:Especially in regards to someone who really seems to be playing doublespeak in regards to this wagon.
The only problem is I want both actions to go through tonight. We need a flip on Elscouta and I think Drippereth should come back (although I could be convinced to let this slide a day; but that seems more problematic by letting one less likely town back in the game).farside22 wrote:He said something that made me think and it can be proven. So I'm think if he can prove it then let him prove it.
Thanks for the clarification. You are still scum.Iecerint wrote:CBwagon was never sketchy. CBplayer was sketchy. CKD was like "Vote: Jack. CB is town." just after some other people had done something similar.
Shit. I totally forgot the part where he said he lied about everything based on his "suspicion." Nevermind the question; I was still trying to wrap my head around the whole bus driver possibility thing.J-Scope wrote:@xvart, if you think we're town (by way of helping to revive us) I don't see why you'd want us to essentially full claim. So I'm not answering that.FFFF wrote:okay I'd like to come clean....
I am the watcher but I dont have the silmaril.
I did watch j-scope and no one targeted him.
I made up that he targeted farside just to go with my suspicion that since no one targeted J-Scope at night there was a chance that he could be scum.
How does someone watching someone mean it is more likely that FFFF's role got transferred?ooba wrote:To clarify .. I targeted someone last night and got the result .. "Someone watched PlayerX" .. Could be another watcher also (maybe of the race of men?) but think FFFF's power transferring is more likely ..
Says the lurker...Budja wrote:Lurker wagons (Anon, Cobalt) < Scummy player wagons (CKD)
Your super secret scum tell on FFFF? We don't know yet.SpyreX wrote:HEY my super secret scum tell worked didn't it.
Destruction is resolved after the lynch.Jack wrote:SPS definitely got enough votes, but I wonder if his destruction was blocked somehow.
My changes added.Jack wrote:Starbuck(no feelings either way)
Cobalt
Budja
CyberBob
+Iecrint
So I'm scum because Elscouta linked to me?Anon wrote: Elscouta: saying hi to your scumbuddy gives you just enough points for your slow and painful death. I dont see why would a townie joke with that considering the posterior mess it could create. But lets assume for a second you are just silly and thought it was cool enough to "claim" scum in your first post, just for the lulz. Lets assume you are a decent scumhunter and that you are not going to OMGUS people that are/were voting you for a VALID REASON....
Bzzt.
I was wrong.
Elscouta wrote:I don't like Anon and Drippereth because they have been both attacking me and xvart, with very little reasoning.
What is supersaint? Whoever hammers dies too?xvart wrote:How does someone watching someone mean it is more likely that FFFF's role got transferred?ooba wrote:To clarify .. I targeted someone last night and got the result .. "Someone watched PlayerX" .. Could be another watcher also (maybe of the race of men?) but think FFFF's power transferring is more likely ..
Pretty much, but this one seals the deal in my eyes:J-Scope wrote:@xvart: what is your biggest point on Iec? One of these?
Iecrint is talking aboutxvart wrote:What I was getting at is the fact that you had already cast suspicion on SPS (in a FoS and saying his posts are scummy for a different, as of then, un-described reason) and then you sayIecerint wrote:I don't understand your next question. IIRC, I thought the scummiest/most opportunistic Jack voters were CKD and SPS. (I think I thought CKD was particularly bad because he joined Jackwagon while supporting sketchyCB once people were saying they found CB town. SPS was due to relatively poor reasoning for the switch + lackluster play elsewhere.)IFjack wagon scum exist it is either SPS or CKB. It appears to me that you you already suspect someone of being scum AND your secret towntell on Jack why the IF statement? Leaving a little wiggle room?