Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[Pink Puppy]

I really dislike playing like this... getting into quote wars. And arguing semantics. I really hate arguing the difference between saying someone is "not proactive" vs. "Being reactive is bad." Hate it. I think it distracts from anything useful.

I am hearing you Cephrir that you want me to repost my suspiciouns of you and if any have changed based on things you've said or not. This is fair. I can do that, but I'm not doing it tonight. I'm tired and honestly a little annoyed with you. I feel that long posts like this are annoying for anyone else to read. Heck, they are annoying for me to read.

[EmpTyger]

Cephrir:

<snip>
I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.

But this *is* contradictory. If you aren’t sure about your list, then should you be aggressive so that “things actually happen”? Especially if you’re less sure on D1 than D2. Because, there’s a big problem with this: Akonas.

<snip>

I keep thinking about the post where he said "I don't know who to suspect now, everyone looks town." That kind of post always sets off my scumdar. When people "don't know what to do!!!!!1111" For a variety of reasons, I don't like this argument.
1)None of us really know what to do... we're just pushing people to try to figure it out. So... why even say this? It's like you're trying to act town wihtout helping.

Not like that! Sheesh. Of course none of us know for sure, unless we're cops with a guilty; I obviously meant that I didn't know who to vote for. You'll notice that 2 pages later, I came up with a scumlist and voted based on it. If I was acting like I didn't know who to vote for for a substantial amount of time, I could understand your suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Also, you refer to my not knowing what to do as an "argument"; it wasn't. I just needed to reread, and I did, problem solved.
<snip>

Akonas has been consistently highly in the top 2 spots in your list today, yet you’ve done almost nothing against him. You accuse him in [271] of quietly voting mozs and then reversing himself, but in the same post you quickly add that you’re now “less suspicious of those voting for VoD”. In [440] you say that Akonas is high on your suspect list, but when pressed, in [449], you can’t really give any reasons. And yet despite Akonas being the only one on your suspect list at the time, you’re not voting him- in fact, you’ve never voted him. You finally do explain with your list [461], but then you vote *zeddicus*. And after that vote is invalidated and retracted when he was replaced, and despite a couple others turning their attention to Akonas, you barely follow up, and quickly drop that line.

I agree with PP. This just doesn’t gibe with the rest of your play. I think I’m ready for a

Vote: Cephrir

.

---

Akonas:
Cephrir’s consistently been highly suspicious of you. What do you think of Cephrir?

---

VoD:
Interesting theory regarding Akonas-darkdude. How would vikingfan fit in to your hypothesis?

---

darkdude:

<snip>
Does throwing around potential clues not help? When I stated that I noticed the phenomenon, I did not expect anything to come out of it, but I decided to say it anyways because it can't hurt, and could POTENTIALLY be helpful.

I mean, it's not as if everything you say is helpful either. Did you expect that some of your points would be refuted? If so why did you say it in the first place?

Seems to me you're trying to make a nonsensical case based on nothing.

Observation + analysis; it’s not either/or. Simply saying that “everyone is doing something” may be an excellent observation, but it doesn’t excuse you for shirking analysis. Because an observation like that is useless without analysis. I mean, are you going to accuse “everyone”? Vote “everyone”? Lynch “everyone”?

You’ve gone through much of the day avoiding naming names. That’s not helpful for the town, and it’s an easy way for antitowns to slide by. Because they can maintain an illusion of contribution by providing “helpful observations”, which by themselves are useless in terms of *catching* antitowns.

[darkdude]

Well I'm reading this new Cephrir incident and I'm not sure what to think about it at the moment. Seems like PinkPuppy really has reasons to see him as scum, but as Cephrir says in his defense:

Town can not know, too.

I think the general expectation here is that all pro-town players should pick out every little suspicious thing and look for a scum from that. But I am sure there are instances where nothing particularily suspicious is present. In that case you can either say "I don't know" or find some trivial thing to put pressure on. I did both (my note of the incident since replacement was the latter) and both were scummy. So I personally don't think it's quite a valid point. But perhaps I missed something through all that text, as several players (to point out the obvious, windkirby and tyger; you wanted names ) also suspect the same. If I did miss something; some potential scumtell other than "he doesn't know", then please tell me.

[Crub]

Twelth Vote Count of Day 2

darkdude (2):

Talitha, Pink Puppy

QuantumFruit (1):

darkdude

vikingfan (1):

Akonas

Pink Puppy (1):

Cephrir

Cephrir (1):

EmpTyger

Not Voting (4):

thevampireofdusseldorf, QuantumFruit, windkirby, vikingfan

With 10 alive it takes 6 to lynch.

[Cephrir]

Akonas has been consistently highly in the top 2 spots in your list today, yet you’ve done almost nothing against him. You accuse him in [271] of quietly voting mozs and then reversing himself, but in the same post you quickly add that you’re now “less suspicious of those voting for VoD”. In [440] you say that Akonas is high on your suspect list, but when pressed, in [449], you can’t really give any reasons. And yet despite Akonas being the only one on your suspect list at the time, you’re not voting him- in fact, you’ve never voted him.

Just because he was the highest on my suspect list means I have to vote him? I wasn't necessarily certain enough to vote, y'know.

You finally do explain with your list [461], but then you vote *zeddicus*. And after that vote is invalidated and retracted when he was replaced, and despite a couple others turning their attention to Akonas, you barely follow up, and quickly drop that line.

I agree with PP. This just doesn’t gibe with the rest of your play. I think I’m ready for a Vote: Cephrir.

After a reread, I decided that pursuing zeddicus was a better idea, yes. Akonas is still second on my list, along with darkdude, which has been the case ever since. I also didn't vote because I wasn't sure which of the two was scummier, but dd's play has gotten ever-so-slightly better since then. Since we've gotten most everything we can out of darkdude, anyway, I would be pressuring Akonas at the moment, but I have more pressing issues to deal with (i.e. Pink Puppy being scum).

[vikingfan]

vikingfan:
Don’t want this to get lost:

<snip>
I don't think darkdude's response to the "frame" as he called it, was that anti-town, especially since he seemed to look for some scum soon thereafter.

For the first 2 weeks of D2, it seemed that darkdude did anything but. First he said that no one was suspicious, and in particular he defended VoD. Then he reversed and said that VoD was suspicious, while still saying that no one else seemed suspicious. Then he voted zeddicus, but specified that it was for lurking, not for any suspicions.
What do you see differently in darkdude’s response?

I don't understand why you're quoting windkirby in a question asked to me. Is there something I'm missing here? My viewpoint on DD is already well documented.

I'm not sure what to make of the interaction between PP and Cephrir...feels too much like flame wars. At this point though, given how much they're attacking each other, it feels like both of them can't be scum (or if they are, they're doing a superb job of distancing).

[EmpTyger]

darkdude:
I think you’re relying on your new-ness as a defense, and you’re doing it in such a way that makes me strongly suspect that you’re not doing it innocently.

You clearly know what types of things to look for. D1 you were pointing out QF’s “scum bandwagoning”, Yvonne’s “baseless accusations” and “directing attention”, and the holes in mozs’s defense. And then earlier D2 you deduced that you were being framed, and how to make your defense most plausible. And you’ve also pointed out VoD’s taking a deciding vote less than seriously, and the distinction between voting for a claim rather than a lynch, and you’ve lurkerprodded zeddicus. And you’re especially able to play quite fine when it comes to defending yourself, or when you’ve attacked 2 players who, as it turns out, are innocent (that is, Yvonne and mozs; though also from *my* point of view, since *I* know zeddicus’s innocent).

But then every so often you lapse into this unhelpful cluelessness. You quickly resort to a claiming unfamiliarity with the site, and you just make everything out to be so much more hopelessly complicated than it actually is, that you can’t possibly express suspicions.

Townspeople must try to find mafia.

There’s not necessarily a right and a wrong way to do so- and there are certainly methods particular to mafiascum that I admit you could be unfamiliar with. But there are too many eyebrow-raising times when I just don’t see you *trying*, when you clearly are capable of doing so.

---

Cephrir:

<snip>
Just because he was the highest on my suspect list means I have to vote him? I wasn't necessarily certain enough to vote, y'know.

No- and that wasn’t my point.

<snip>
After a reread, I decided that pursuing zeddicus was a better idea, yes. Akonas is still second on my list, along with darkdude, which has been the case ever since. I also didn't vote because I wasn't sure which of the two was scummier, but dd's play has gotten ever-so-slightly better since then. Since we've gotten most everything we can out of darkdude, anyway, I would be pressuring Akonas at the moment, but I have more pressing issues to deal with (i.e. Pink Puppy being scum).

My point is that, for someone you’re allegedly so suspicious of, you haven’t shown the same kind of aggressive play towards Akonas which you’ve had towards most others. If you legitimately weren’t certain, then why didn’t you aggressively follow up? Like you’ve done with windkirby, mozs, zeddicus, darkdude, and PP? Instead, you’ve found reason after reason to avoid aggressively pressuring someone *despite* the fact that you’ve consistently stated you’re suspicious of him.
Not voting is only a small part of it. Don’t pretend it’s the only part.

---

vikingfan:
It was a typo, sorry- didn’t notice it until [546]. Yes, that was intended for windkirby, not you.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir, I always thought your vote on zeddicus was weak and unfounded, not to mention opportunistic since you voted him when he clearly needed to be replaced. Not that you can't ever vote a player you feel is scummy who needs replacement... but after zeddicus did get replaced, you unvoted his replacement. What is the point of voting someone who needs replacement if you're just going to back off?

Please explain.

Here are some quotes:

zeddicus- Isolating his posts has made me realize that I've been seriously overlooking zeddicus. I think he just... faded into the background for me, somehow. He's actually pretty light on content, and has a tendency to just show up and quote a bunch of things, agree with or critisize them, then drop off the face of the earth again. It sort of allowed him to get away with little content IMO. His only real input was critisism of mozsuggs, which was the popular thing to do at the time (don't take me wrong, I'm not critisizing that wagon, he just seems to go along with others often is what I mean) Followed PP on VoD a bit today (but not with a vote), but so did some others. Definitely rising on the scum-o-meter.
... [snip]...
vote zeddicus

Cephrir... did you not read my post saying that Zeddicus is absent from another game I am in (Roach Mini if you want to check)? Most of your argument falls apart if you consider that zeddicus hasn't been around to post more content and will need replacement.

I absolutely did read that, and I definitely don't agree that my argument falls apart based on that. I reviewed his posts in isolation. I didn't consider dates really, and my entire case was based on what he actually had posted.

While he was around

, he was low on content, and even on Day 1 when he was here I totally overlooked him. Look at the way he posts. All he does is quote something, type a line, move on. He wasn't playing proactively, just responding to what others said. The vote on moz is the only post where he didn't do that outside of the random voting stage.

That said, I am going to back off on EmpTyger for a while. I overreacted a bit to my discovery that zeddicus wasn't contributing enough and put him higher than he should have been on my scumlist, I guess I was just excited about having found something. I also want to give him a chance to prove himself, being a replacement, and his first post is a step in the right direction. If he's acting scummy later, I'll be extra suspicious because of zeddicus' actions, but for now I'll give him a mostly clean slate. He's now below Akonas and darkdude. Unvote.

And you ADMIT that you ovverreacted to zeddicus and made a mistake. I am the one who pointed this out to you. You first say that you are right and I am wrong, and then say you overreacted about zeddicus. I don't see how both these things can be true.

It looks more to me that you realized your vote was weak, couldn't defend it to me, and backed off to make it go away.

[Cephrir]

My point is that, for someone you’re allegedly so suspicious of, you haven’t shown the same kind of aggressive play towards Akonas which you’ve had towards most others. If you legitimately weren’t certain, then why didn’t you aggressively follow up? Like you’ve done with windkirby, mozs, zeddicus, darkdude, and PP? Instead, you’ve found reason after reason to avoid aggressively pressuring someone *despite* the fact that you’ve consistently stated you’re suspicious of him.
Not voting is only a small part of it. Don’t pretend it’s the only part.

I haven't YET, actually. That doesn't mean I'm not still planning on it after this silly mess is sorted out.

Cephrir, I always thought your vote on zeddicus was weak and unfounded, not to mention opportunistic since you voted him when he clearly needed to be replaced. Not that you can't ever vote a player you feel is scummy who needs replacement... but after zeddicus did get replaced, you unvoted his replacement. What is the point of voting someone who needs replacement if you're just going to back off?

My vote on him and the replacement were not correlated. When I isolated everyone's posts, as I'm fairly certain I've already explained, I had a "holy crap how did I miss that?" reaction and overreacted. I back off Emp because I'm giving Emp a chance to prove himself, and I still think zeddicus' actions were suspicious. I think it's a good policy to lay off on replacements for a bit while they get up to speed, and he's still in the upper ranges of my scumlist. Just because I'm dealing with obvious scum for a little while doesn't mean my suspicions on Emp, dd and Akonas have evaporated.

And you ADMIT that you ovverreacted to zeddicus and made a mistake. I am the one who pointed this out to you. You first say that you are right and I am wrong, and then say you overreacted about zeddicus. I don't see how both these things can be true.

It looks more to me that you realized your vote was weak, couldn't defend it to me, and backed off to make it go away.

Or, I realized my vote was weak, and backed off because I realized this; not being able to defend it to you has nothing to do with it seeing I don't care what you think at this point. You're looking actions that could easily be made by a protown player and finding reasons why scum could do the same thing. If, by some stretch of the imagination, you are town, you are viewing this thread and my posts through a "Cephrir is scum" lens. Kindly remove it and try to see how I might say the same things I am saying as town.

[darkdude]

You clearly know what types of things to look for. D1 you were pointing out QF’s “scum bandwagoning”, Yvonne’s “baseless accusations” and “directing attention”, and the holes in mozs’s defense. And then earlier D2 you deduced that you were being framed, and how to make your defense most plausible. And you’ve also pointed out VoD’s taking a deciding vote less than seriously, and the distinction between voting for a claim rather than a lynch, and you’ve lurkerprodded zeddicus. And you’re especially able to play quite fine when it comes to defending yourself, or when you’ve attacked 2 players who, as it turns out, are innocent (that is, Yvonne and mozs; though also from *my* point of view, since *I* know zeddicus’s innocent).

But then every so often you lapse into this unhelpful cluelessness. You quickly resort to a claiming unfamiliarity with the site, and you just make everything out to be so much more hopelessly complicated than it actually is, that you can’t possibly express suspicions.

First of all, thanks for the compliment.

But do you honestly expect people to find those things all the time, with no break in between? And I wasn't using the newbie argument in my last few posts. I was talking specifically about this game. I didn't blame my recent lack of leads on noobishness.

[Talitha]

I havent quite caught up with the last 4 or so pages, so I'll go back and try to do that now.

VOD: Re your post 483 where you say that your case on Zeddicus is much stronger than my case on darkdude. I just wanted to acknowledge that what you say does make sense and I can see where you’re coming from. I disagree, but I see where you’re coming from. I don’t see bandwagoning as scummy in itself… especially Day 1. If I weren’t so busy lately I’d probably have been on every bandwagon myself. I think that looking for inconsistencies between what is said and what is done can be more telling

[Talitha]

And I have to say that I find VOD's attitude towards Emptyger (replacing Zeddicus) interesting. I agree that it is nice to give a replacer a bit of breathing space and not expect them to answer for things that their predecessor did... but VOD seemed to give up his suspicions (or at least put them on the backburner). Because even though they are different

players

, they are both the same

role

. So if VOD believed Zeddicus to be scum, he should have equally believed Emptyger to be scum (at least until he heard more from Emptyger). This doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't achieve anything for the town to let a replacement start with a blank slate - especially if they are your best guess at scum.

[Talitha]

OK, post 491, Cephrir does basically the same thing and gives Emptyger a "mostly clean slate". I am not quite so critical of this one as he gives slightly more of a reason for backing off, and at least Emptyger has posted a bit of content by this time... but it still seems a little bit like backing off because the target isn't so easy anymore.

[Talitha]

Talitha:

<snip>
Darkdude - I hate to try to lynch a newbie on the first day, but can't give out any free passes as this is a cut-throat game! Your reactions strike me as controlled rather than natural, and you're arguing about word use rather than why you're not scum.
vote: darkdude
...Dammit, after reading over his posts, I'm having second thoughts... He might not be scum. And he's new.
unvote: darkdude
<snip>

Specifically, what were the second thoughts you found?

If I remember correctly, it wasn't anything specific that I found. I just wasn't sure enough. Because I was lynched day 1 of my first ever mafia game and still bear the scars (:P) I often try to give newbies a break. If I am positive they're scum I'll lynch them, but after reading over darkdude's posts I wasn't quite ready to lynch him day 1. I thought he was new to mafia.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

Ok im starting to feel a bit better so heres my thoughts on the last few pages.

Re: My suspicions of Zeddicus.

First I will give you my explanation as I dont like how you claim I have given him a blank slate, I think it was cephrir who said that.

Ok now I'm not sure how to deal with this replacement situation but I can only sensibly say that EmpTyger is not responsible for zeddicus actions and can hardly provide reasons for him doing what he did. Now I still have to hold zeddicus actions as scummy but will not use that a sole reason for being suspicious of Emp. Given if Emp becomes suspicous then the wieght of zedds actions will also be taken into consideration.

So I have zeddicus actions as reason to hold zeddicus scummy but not to think immediately of Tyger as scum. So thus when he entered the game I watched him to see if he added anymore to my suspicion, but he did not and he has not given me reason to think of him as scum from his actions. My suspicion has never been given up and still stands but it will not come into play unless I have reason to believe Tyger scum from his actions. I wished for zeddicus to answer for his playstyle so I could get a better idea about him. Then him being replaced I could hardly ask EmpTyger to explain zeddicus play style to me.

Re: Post 557

I think only Akonas and Tyger commented on this at all. I found it all very interesting.
Akonas response was

I'm just trying to be helpful so that we don't lynch YET ANOTHER stupid townie.

I'm getting a bit confused here, and again you reference moz in your "YET ANOTHER stupid townie" comment.
For someone who has stated constantly about DD

No, I don't know he's a townie; I'm suspicious of him, but I'm not sure.

you have tried giving many implications that he is in fact town. Im seeing this as all rather wierd: using the line about I dont know about DD, being helpful towards him and making many references to him being town. Something is not adding up IMO.

VoD:
Interesting theory regarding Akonas-darkdude. How would vikingfan fit in to your hypothesis?

Im not sure what you mean as I dont see him being part of any scum dynamics between DD/Akonas.

Re: Cephrir/PP

Post 551 vs 553
I believe town are as likely as scum to have a "I dont know who to be suspicious of" moment and I belive it was a moment with cephrir not a continious thing. I openly admited to having one after zeddicus was replaced. PP 3rd point in 551 makes only some sense because cephrir was quite aggresive day one. Why he is less aggresive day 2 is a valid question. But to me it seems PP thinks cephrir scum and this is the reason. Perhaps this is true but I am not so sure. After being so aggresive and being part of the vote count that lynched a town regardless of alignment I would think a change in style would happen.

Post 569 Windkirby
I see it basicly the same way. I think cephrirs reaction came from PP having a weak case on him.

Post 570 PP
Others were suspicious of zeddicus before he was replaced. I belive that this suspicion was merited. It does appear that Cephrirs case on zeddicus was perhaps not the best and he did make a flase accusation "Go ahead, find me a place where zeddicus "led voting". It doesn't exist.".
Just because someone has a weak case on someone else doesn't make them scum. I belive the cases on vikingfan weak but I am not suspicious of those making the cases.

So I am not buying much of the case against Cephrir from PP. I get the feeling the case is a whole lot of things that could potentialy be construed as scummy but are not great scum tells.

Post 567 EmpTyger.
This is a good point about his suspicions on Akonas without ever really making a case.

@PP
The point about Cephrirs case on zeddicus I am not understanding too well at this stage. I believed zeddicus also suspicious but I am guessing PP you are finding the way in which the suspicion was presented suspicious and then the backing off?

[Talitha]

VOD
Sorry to hear you haven't been well.
The pertinent part of your quote is where you say "...EmpTyger is not responsible for zeddicus actions". No you didn't use the words 'blank slate', but by not holding him responsible for the actions of his predecessor you are in fact giving him a blank slate, IMO. And I think it's suspicious that you want to treat Zeddicus and EmpTyger as separate entities, just because I don't think it's a natural reaction for a genuine scum-hunting townie.

Re: Akonas
I also think that Akonas' comments about darkdude are interesting. Not sure what to think there.

Re: PinkPuppy vs Cephrir
I could join a Cephrir wagon if the darkdude wagon doesn't get rolling. As i've mentioned, I wasn't a fan of Cephrir's vote on an absent player earlier this game day. I also found several of his posts on Day 1 suspicious, eg posts 42 & 53 where he seems to be trying to shut down scum-hunting. I also have posts 32/100, 142, 207 & 213 marked as suspicious (Noting that here as a reminder to myself to go back and see why.)

Re: EmpTyger
I am a little suspicious of Emp making a big deal out of the 3 mafia thing. I guess it's because I see it as a really dumb thing for a scum to do - to slip up and post how many mafia there are in the game - and I don't think Cephrir is really dumb. Am I wrong here? It just makes me a little worried, so I thought I'd mention it.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

I dont know if I am hadling the replacement thing right, but this is the first time I have been presented with having someone replaced in a game I am in, but I am doing what I believe is right. They are seperate entities but they do sahare a common role. So zeddicus played his role in a way that made me think he could be scum and Tyger is playing the same role in a way that makes me think he could be town. If zeddicus was still here I would be pressuring him for his play/actions but I don't see how I can do this with his replacement.
I dont understand how I could do any better.......would you like me to present a case against zeddicus and get tyger to answer to it?

[Cephrir]

This is a good point about his suspicions on Akonas without ever really making a case.

I started one in 461, I just haven't continued with it yet.

posts 42 & 53 where he seems to be trying to shut down scum-hunting.

That's a bit of a stretch.

VoD's most recent post is right.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir, I always thought your vote on zeddicus was weak and unfounded, not to mention opportunistic since you voted him when he clearly needed to be replaced. Not that you can't ever vote a player you feel is scummy who needs replacement... but after zeddicus did get replaced, you unvoted his replacement. What is the point of voting someone who needs replacement if you're just going to back off?

My vote on him and the replacement were not correlated. When I isolated everyone's posts, as I'm fairly certain I've already explained, I had a "holy crap how did I miss that?" reaction and overreacted. I back off Emp because I'm giving Emp a chance to prove himself, and I still think zeddicus' actions were suspicious. I think it's a good policy to lay off on replacements for a bit while they get up to speed, and he's still in the upper ranges of my scumlist. Just because I'm dealing with obvious scum for a little while doesn't mean my suspicions on Emp, dd and Akonas have evaporated.

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment.

And you ADMIT that you ovverreacted to zeddicus and made a mistake. I am the one who pointed this out to you. You first say that you are right and I am wrong, and then say you overreacted about zeddicus. I don't see how both these things can be true.

It looks more to me that you realized your vote was weak, couldn't defend it to me, and backed off to make it go away.

Or, I realized my vote was weak, and backed off because I realized this; not being able to defend it to you has nothing to do with it seeing I don't care what you think at this point. You're looking actions that could easily be made by a protown player and finding reasons why scum could do the same thing. If, by some stretch of the imagination, you are town, you are viewing this thread and my posts through a "Cephrir is scum" lens. Kindly remove it and try to see how I might say the same things I am saying as town.

It's true that in a way I am looking at your posts from the POV that you are scum, but that's only because I was suspicious of you after what I took to be an opportunistic vote on zeddicus. After that, yes, I will question everything you do that I find even a little bit scummy. You should not be worried about it if I am wrong. If your explanations are so compelling, nobody will agree with me. A majority of players need to think you're scum to be lynched, not just me.

I also find it funny that you were never suspicious of me until I started questioning your actions. Your vote on me is basically glorified OMGUS. And I'm not even voting you at present. You asked why people are suspicious of you, and I am the only one who told you in great detail, as I find you and DD most suspicious. You are really freaking out over the person who is dealing with you most fairly and directly.

[Cephrir]

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment.

Well, I didn't do what you expected, then. Deal with it. It sucks replacing in with votes on you and I didn't want to make him do that.

It's true that in a way I am looking at your posts from the POV that you are scum, but that's only because I was suspicious of you after what I took to be an opportunistic vote on zeddicus. After that, yes, I will question everything you do that I find even a little bit scummy. You should not be worried about it if I am wrong. If your explanations are so compelling, nobody will agree with me. A majority of players need to think you're scum to be lynched, not just me.

Oh, I fully realize that. I'm just waiting for everyone else to chime in and tell you you're wrong.

I also find it funny that you were never suspicious of me until I started questioning your actions. Your vote on me is basically glorified OMGUS.

I realized that it sort of was, and I tried to avoid voting for you earlier because of that. I almost voted for you in 553 but tried to hold off. Your case on me was just so weak that I couldn't take it anymore eventually.

You asked why people are suspicious of you, and I am the only one who told you in great detail, as I find you and DD most suspicious. You are really freaking out over the person who is dealing with you most fairly and directly.

Oh, I know. I'd love it if Talitha would explain her suspicion on me, and I believe there was someone else as well. I wouldn't be "freaking out" if your points made sense.

[Pink Puppy]

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment.

Well, I didn't do what you expected, then. Deal with it. It sucks replacing in with votes on you and I didn't want to make him do that.

Then why would you vote a player who needs replacing in the first place? If you are just planning to unvote them and give them a free pass later?

[Cephrir]

I wasn't thinking about the fact that he needed replacement.

[Pink Puppy]

But I told you he needed replacement before and after you voted him.

So you knew.

[Cephrir]

I guess. It still wasn't a factor in my thought process. It's not like I thought, "Oh, this guy's going to get replaced soon so I'm going to unvote him" at the time.

[EmpTyger]

I still like my vote of Cephrir. With so many not voting I’d rather hear where thevampireofdusseldorf, QuantumFruit, windkirby, and vikingfan weigh in, but I could join a darkdude wagon if the Cephrir wagon doesn't get rolling.