Mini 594 - Satin Doll Showdown - {GAME OVER}

[MafiaSSK]

Heh.

I see hasdgfas providing a double-standard in Mizzy's favor (she's practically all metagaming, which he's supposed to hate) and, as noted earlier in the post you quoted, lying about the consistency of her play. I think this implies an association.

Why do you ask?

Ah, that makes sense now.

I asked for questioning purposes. I wasn't sure if you were finding some tiny scumtells. I really don't like those. However, it does make sesnse that it could lead to accosiation with each other.

[Erg0]

I also don't quite understand the point Erg0 is getting at.

I'm assuming (hoping) that we'll see a bit more from Poker once he's got this meta thing sorted out. I don't recall seeing him use meta as his sole source of information anywhere else. Yes, I'm meta-ing his meta-ing.

Glork does seem very disconnected from proceedings so far. I was kind of hoping for a couple more votes to follow mine, but that doesn't look like happening at this point.

I'm not a big fan of Tar's play so far, he looks a lot like his SK self from Mini 545.

I think I could see hasdgfas and MafiaSSK as buddies, based on the timing of hasdgfas' vote. Either that or hasdgfas is looking for a viable alternative wagon now that he's coming under pressure. I'm generally opposed to serious wagons on players like SSK at the start of the game, unless they have a history of only lurking as scum. I also feel like hasdgfas would have gone after Glork a little harder if he were town.

A week until deadline, time to get things moving methinks.

Unvote, Vote: hasdgfas

If you think hasdgfas is scum with MafiaSSK then you seem to be implying that you suspect MafiaSSK. Aside from his general lurking and low content posting, are there other reasons you suspect him? If part of your case on cow is some association with MafiaSSK then wouldn't it make sence to pursue any suspicions you have on MafiaSSK aswell?

To answer your question, the reason I'm not pursuing MafiaSSK equally is that my main reason for finding him suspicious (i.e. hasdgfas' vote) is only a correct if hasdgfas himself is scum. They're kind of two separate things right now - I actually find hasdgfas' vote suspicious regardless of SSK's alignment.

It more so appears like you are giving up on the Glork wagon and trying to find a viable alternative.

"Giving up" is possibly too strong a term, but I recognised that I was probably playing a little too casually, given the deadlines that are in play here. I'm not sure that I like the idea of actually lynching Glork on day 1.

With the extra time OGML just gave us I don't think it is necessary to hurry a lynch on hasdfgas.

Probably not. He's nowhere near a lynch at this point, though.

[Tarhalindur]

/prodded

I will deal more with this game once a pressing deadline in another game has passed.

For the time being, I'm going to put some pressure on Elmo in the hope of getting some content out of him.

Unvote, Vote: Elmo

[hasdgfas]

(she's practically all metagaming, which he's supposed to hate)

OK, now I shall explain my thoughts on meta-ing, because apparently it hasn't been understood.
First off, I'm pretty sure I never said that I hate metagaming. What I said, iirc, is that meta-ing isn't always a great way to find scum.
The difference I see between PF's metagaming and Mizzy's metagamin is that PF is placing a very heavy emphasis on it, with that one large post(his post #5) metagaming, as far as I can tell, everyone in the game, and also saying that meta-ing is one of his biggest things to do for the game as a whole. He mentioned a couple of times to people that he wanted links to their games as scum, and what I gather from that is that he's going to see if they're acting similarly in this game as well. That's what I find iffy, because most people don't play scum the same way every game.
Mizzy, on the other hand, has done things like just comment on the fact that someone seems to be playing normally. That's not meta-scumhunting, like what PF is doing. Commenting on whether someone is acting normally or not is a different kind of meta-ing than seeing if they're acting like they did as scum in a previous game, at least IMO.
Does that make a little more sense or is it still confusing?

[hasdgfas]

hasdgfas, I really don't understand your recent vote on MafiaSSK or any of the content of your past few posts. Back in Post 164 you mentioned that you were most suspicious of rolandgarros, Glork, PokerFace, and this fourth person who you couldn't remember (we now know this to be MafiaSSK). You seem to be basing your vote on SSK on the fact that he created a pro-town list of people based on vibes and hasn't done any form of scum-hunting. Glork also made a pro-town list of people with at least one of those people on his list being based on gut and according to you he hasn't done much scum-hunting either but you've never voted for him or even FoS-ed him. Is there any reason why?

Incog, he's on my list of suspicions, so that equates into a FoS for everyone on it, even though I might not have formally said so. The reason I'm not voting him is that I'm currently suspicious of him mostly on gut, not enough to get a good case on him, but if you'd prefer a formal FoS, I can do that too.

I don't get this. What you are attacking SSK has done, so has Glork. But yet your suspicions of Glork is mostly gut...Why should they be held to separate standards? When SSK posts a short list of who he has town vibes from, its scummy. Glork also does this, but yet your suspicion on him is still gut? Care to explain...

Glork, unlike SSK, has done other things besides just make a list of who seems protown. Glork also appears to be doing some scumhunting, which slightly makes up for his list of protowners. SSK has done absolutely nothing, which is unacceptable.

[Mizzy]

Back, I'm re-reading from the start of the thread. Will post mah findings when I find them!

[Elmo]

/prodded

I'm really sorry, I feel awful. I'll try and post something coherent tomorrow.

[Glork]

/prodded

I'm really sorry, I feel awful. I'll try and post something coherent tomorrow.

There is no try. Do or

do not

die.

[Incognito]

Incog, he's on my list of suspicions, so that equates into a FoS for everyone on it, even though I might not have formally said so. The reason I'm not voting him is that I'm currently suspicious of him mostly on gut, not enough to get a good case on him, but if you'd prefer a formal FoS, I can do that too.

I

don't really need a formal FoS; I was just attempting to clarify what I saw to be an inconsistency. The SSK vote still bothers me though because while you did mention recently that you're less suspicious of Glork relative to SSK because Glork does seem to be doing more scum-hunting than SSK (thereby explaining why SSK got the vote for making a "pro-town list" as opposed to Glork getting the vote for doing the exact same thing), your vote needed to be prompted in a way. And actually, it's not even the prompting that I'm bothered by; it's the fact that you couldn't even

remember

who this fourth person was that you were suspicious of. If SSK was that forgettable relative to your other three suspects, I would expect him to be the

least

vote-worthy of the bunch as opposed to the

most

.

Well, my problem with him is that he seems to only be meta-ing, and I really don't like that. I use meta as some of my arguments, but not as everything I do for the whole game.

We really have no way of knowing the reason PokerFace has decided to ask for referential games because he hasn't provided us with his findings from those games yet. It seems a bit early to say that PF is using meta "for the whole game" when this game isn't very long yet. I am very curious to see what PF has deduced from his research.

[Patrick]

He mentioned a couple of times to people that he wanted links to their games as scum, and what I gather from that is that he's going to see if they're acting similarly in this game as well. That's what I find iffy, because most people don't play scum the same way every game.

This gives me the impression you think metagaming of this kind is bad strategy-wise, and that's what I've been picking up from some of your other comments too, without really explaining why it's scummy. What makes it scummy instead of poor play in your opinion?

Mizzy, on the other hand, has done things like just comment on the fact that someone seems to be playing normally. That's not meta-scumhunting, like what PF is doing. Commenting on whether someone is acting normally or not is a different kind of meta-ing than seeing if they're acting like they did as scum in a previous game, at least IMO.

Mizzy said that Ether is playing as she'd expect Ether to behave as town, did that bother you? You've said most people won't play the same as scum in every game, doesn't that apply equally well to town?

I dunno, it just seems like an awfully fine distinction you're making here between the type of metagaming being used by PF as opposed to Mizzy Even if Mizzy is only saying, "X is behaving normally", she's using metagaming as her reasoning.

[Erg0]

Glork, unlike SSK, has done other things besides just make a list of who seems protown. Glork also appears to be doing some scumhunting, which slightly makes up for his list of protowners. SSK has done absolutely nothing, which is unacceptable.

I'm not impressed with SSK's contribution so far, but I don't agree with this statement. Although Glork certainly has more posts in the game so far, I'd hardly say he's been scumhunting to any great degree. Most of his posting is pretty vague and reasonless. hasdgfas' statement here reinforces my earlier feeling - he seems to be kind of shying away from Glork at this point, possibly in fear of his reputation.

I nearly wrote "considerable prowess" there, but thought better of it.

[Mizzy]

Page 1:

Not much to say here except that the seeds are sown for the whole Glork-role-fishing debacle which I don't really agree with. I think part of the problem here, as shown by Glork's #24, is that since most of us already know each other and have played together, we are automatically suspicious of each other above and beyond what we normally would be and what is necessarily healthy.

Page 2:

I don't want to say too much about the whole "Glork was rolefishing" thing because it's already been beaten to death and I don't want to start that up again, however I did want to mention that Ether showed her normal over-the-top self that I met in Pick Your Poison in #47. I don't find what she was doing as scummy, just reaching, which is what prompted me to mention that I thought her pro-town at the time.

Page 3:

I find it interesting that we have a couple different flavors of attempts at aiding discussion here. Patrick is acting questions related to conversations he isn't in but seems interested in, Glork is being a sarcastic bugger, and Cow is asking questions with a slight accusatory tone. I also find it interesting that Glork didn't find Cow's explanation satisfactory and yet he wasn't pushing for a better one.

Page 4:

Tar opens with a good point about Ether's posting, which in retrospect does look like some veiled attacking, though again, it's not enough for me to find her suspicious yet. Patrick for some reason is beginning to bother me. He seems to be inserting his two-cents everywhere, though he doesn't seem to be doing much scumhunting on his own. It looks like he's trying to look contributive without actually adding content of his own.

I do wish that Glork had explained his "early pro-town indicators" but I don't think he did.

Now comes that post of mine that everyone shat themselves over, and while I suppose I can understand why, I think people are looking for scumtells around corners that they'll never find them around. What I mean by that is that I feel that everyone is being far too over-sensitive about scumhunting here. It makes me worry that the moment a townie makes a mistake, they'll be railroaded even if it's something as trivial as a spelling error.

I also notice that Glork and Ether went from distancing to agreeing in one page and all it took was one post by me with lots of qualifiers.

Page 5:

I don't agree with Scot's interpretation of Tar, especially since it's kind of hidden in his post #105 and there's not even any Tar quote in there. It also interests me that Glork forgot who he was voting...unless he doesn't care much at this point, then it could be an indication of his vote being a weak one and perhaps he knew that. Maybe he wanted an excuse to vote someone else? Not sure. Also, not sure how someone who has barely posted can feel sinister (Ether's #108.) Patrick points out Glork's hypocritical mindset. I don't like Ether's unexplained unvote/vote in her #121.

Page 6:

Patrick's #125 feels very pot-kettle to me, and I don't agree with his interpretations of Poker, either. I don't think Poker was trying to blend in, but I do think Patrick was doing that in some of his previous posting. Unexplained unvote/vote on me from Incognito, ugh, this is becoming a trend. Glork is reaching for something to be bitchy about in his #130. Later, finally an explanation from Incognito, but I'd much rather have seen it in the vote post rather than having to ask for it.

I think Ergo's Glork vote in #140 probably should have been an FoS and not a vote because his reason for the vote is pretty weak. MafiaSSK does his unexplained pro-town vibes post, and gain Patrick asks a ton of questions but I can't tell if it's from scumhunting or from wanting to appear like he is scumhunting.

Page 7:

Poker's #158 makes me feel pretty good about him now, mainly because he really seems to have done some good thinking and seems to be honestly scumhunting. Oh look, yet more answer-prompting from Patrick.

Page 8:

Please don't anyone feel bad about attacking me just because I'm a new mother, but do keep in mind that my time and energy is very limited. I am not up to my playing standards at the moment, so you all will need to bear with me.

Okay now I can see some of why people are attacking cow, though I can't say I'm convinced that he's a good lynch yet.

Page 9:

I think that most of Glork's posting in this game have been sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek, and I would like to see more actual content from him.

Conclusion:

I feel like everyone is nitpicking the crap out of everything, whether it deserves it or not. People need to take this game seriously, sure, but going overboard on every little thing will make it easy for scum to make crap cases and mislynch if we're not careful.

Also,

Unvote. Vote: Patrick

for all aforementioned dislike of his posting.

[Patrick]

The way in which you've presented this suspicion of me makes it kind of hard to answer to. You've said you don't like how I seem to insert my opinion/two cents everywhere, and how I'm asking questions everywhere, but that's how I play the game. I don't see any other way of scumhunting. I can explain why I asked any particularly question if necessary.

Patrick's #125 feels very pot-kettle to me,

I had to laugh at this though. You've done alot less scumhunting than I have this game, and you're not the only one.

And here's a (gasp) question. What's protown about Poker's 158? He didn't take many firm stands in that post at all, and left the door open to doing practically anything with alot of, "But I have to meta them" type comments.

Oh look, yet more answer-prompting from Patrick.

Assuming you mean my post 163, this looks like a stupidly cheap shot with the sole purpose to continue to build this image you've made of me. What you dislike, when we take away the negative language, is that I asked cow who he suspects? If you look at his posts before that, it's very unclear who he was suspicious of. Are you going to say that every time I ask a question? What do you feel wasn't scumhunting about that?

[Mizzy]

The way in which you've presented this suspicion of me makes it kind of hard to answer to. You've said you don't like how I seem to insert my opinion/two cents everywhere, and how I'm asking questions everywhere, but that's how I play the game. I don't see any other way of scumhunting. I can explain why I asked any particularly question if necessary.

Maybe that is so, but the questions you ask look like you're just trying to look like you're scumhunting. A few questions have been the only thing in a post by you, and more than once, the question has been aimed at a conversation you have not been participating in up until then, which makes me wonder if you are trying to cause dissension among the ranks, as it were.

One huge example is when you asked Glork if his question had been answered to his liking. Not only do I feel like it wasn't your place to ask, but I don't see why you would have any reason to ask that question. And, by asking that question, you altered the natural conversation, which limited the information the town got. What I mean is, you didn't allow Glork to point out for himself that his question wasn't answered properly, and you didn't add anything to the conversation yourself.

Patrick's #125 feels very pot-kettle to me,

I had to laugh at this though. You've done alot less scumhunting than I have this game, and you're not the only one.[/quote]
Just because I am guilty of the lack of scumhunting does not mean that you are not also guilty. I have a newborn baby taking up 99% of my time; what's your excuse?

Just because other people aren't scumhunting does not mean you get to hide behind their lack of hunting in order to justify your own lack of hunting.

I also don't feel like what you have been doing IS scumhunting...I feel like your questions have been designed to make it look like you are participating and scumhunting without actually doing much of either.

And here's a (gasp) question. What's protown about Poker's 158? He didn't take many firm stands in that post at all, and left the door open to doing practically anything with alot of, "But I have to meta them" type comments.

Firstly, this is different than the questions of yours I have a problem with considering that you are actually in a conversation with me and it's not the only damned thing in your post.

Anyway, to answer your question:

Firstly, someone doesn't always need to make a firm stance in a post like this one in order to be seen as pro-town. This is more of a "I just caught up, let me chime in with some of my thoughts" post, kind of like what I did, just in a different format. Just because I have a firm stance doesn't make his less valid.

Secondly, he's saying he has to meta the people he hasn't played much with or played with at all, which I feel is a perfectly fine and valid thing to do.

Why do I see him as pro-town in this post? Because his post seems very sincere, and like he's actually trying to contribute and help out, even though he has no concrete scumdar pings as of yet. Hell, I didn't have a scumdar ping until I re-read you, Patrick, so I don't really see his lack of a firm stance is a problem one way or another.

Assuming you mean my post 163, this looks like a stupidly cheap shot with the sole purpose to continue to build this image you've made of me. What you dislike, when we take away the negative language, is that I asked cow who he suspects? If you look at his posts before that, it's very unclear who he was suspicious of. Are you going to say that every time I ask a question? What do you feel wasn't scumhunting about that?

Yes, I mean that post. It's yet ANOTHER completely empty post from you that contains just one question, one that is generating content by asking another player for said content. It smacks of attempting to look contributive without actually being contributive and it's something that scum often do in order to help them build their own cases later on. Scum already know who town are and so often times have trouble formulating cases without the help from townies. Since I know that you suck ass (you told me so) as scum, this seems like that very tactic from you.

[Mizzy]

Patrick, to better answer your question on how I don't feel that your question to Cow was scumhunting, I feel a scumhunter would have said something like, "Hasfaddasdaas, your last post didn't explain who your suspects are very well, so can you please elaborate?" Instead, you simply asked him who his suspects are, which is something I find suspicious because the motive behind asking is not made clear or even hinted at. It lends more to me thinking that you want to know so that you can build your own cases rather than an actual interest in Cow making his thoughts more precisely known.

[OhGodMyLife]

7th vote count

hasdgfas - 3 (Ether, Erg0, Glork)
Erg0 - 1 (MafiaSSK)
PokerFace - 1 (Patrick)
Tarhalindur - 1 (scotmany12)
Mizzy - 1 (Incognito)
MafiaSSK - 1 (hasdgfas)
Elmo - 1 (Tarhalindur)
Patrick - 1 (Mizzy)

Not Voting - 2 (Elmo, PokerFace)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Current deadline: May 29th, 1:00 PM EST

[Glork]

Less than one week. Let's go cow-tipping.

[Patrick]

Maybe that is so, but the questions you ask look like you're just trying to look like you're scumhunting. A few questions have been the only thing in a post by you, and more than once, the question has been aimed at a conversation you have not been participating in up until then, which makes me wonder if you are trying to cause dissension among the ranks, as it were.

I don't understand why it's a problem to have a post (or several) that contains only a question. It's certainly not unusual. I'm hardly going to add something else to a post that contains a question if it's not needed. Also, I don't understand why you consider it a problem to ask a question about a conversation I haven't participated in up until then. Sometimes I need to ask a question before having a firm opinion on some issue.

One huge example is when you asked Glork if his question had been answered to his liking. Not only do I feel like it wasn't your place to ask, but I don't see why you would have any reason to ask that question. And, by asking that question, you altered the natural conversation, which limited the information the town got. What I mean is, you didn't allow Glork to point out for himself that his question wasn't answered properly, and you didn't add anything to the conversation yourself.

If you've read my posts, I've already explained why I asked that question. Glork had already posted after hasdgfas's response, so I hardly think I was treading on his toes or limiting information.

Just because I am guilty of the lack of scumhunting does not mean that you are not also guilty. I have a newborn baby taking up 99% of my time; what's your excuse?

I'm not making an excuse, as I don't think I need one. I just felt like you accusing me of not scumhunting seemed very left field considering the number of people who you could have reasonably accused of the same.

Firstly, this is different than the questions of yours I have a problem with considering that you are actually in a conversation with me and it's not the only damned thing in your post.

I know I've covered these accusations before, but again, I can't see why that would make a difference. I don't have to be in a conversation with someone before I can ask them questions.

Yes, I mean that post. It's yet ANOTHER completely empty post from you that contains just one question, one that is generating content by asking another player for said content. It smacks of attempting to look contributive without actually being contributive and it's something that scum often do in order to help them build their own cases later on. Scum already know who town are and so often times have trouble formulating cases without the help from townies. Since I know that you suck ass (you told me so) as scum, this seems like that very tactic from you.

I can hardly believe I'm seeing this. Yes, I was looking for him to produce content about his suspicions, because I felt I didn't have any real idea who he suspected, that seems kind of a routine thing to do when you feel that way about someone. Your argument here would apply if I'd only been asking questions and not providing any opinions of my own, which might even be close to one of Tar's tells, but you've said yourself that you don't like how I've been giving my two cents apparently without scumhunting.

Patrick, to better answer your question on how I don't feel that your question to Cow was scumhunting, I feel a scumhunter would have said something like, "Hasfaddasdaas, your last post didn't explain who your suspects are very well, so can you please elaborate?" Instead, you simply asked him who his suspects are, which is something I find suspicious because the motive behind asking is not made clear or even hinted at. It lends more to me thinking that you want to know so that you can build your own cases rather than an actual interest in Cow making his thoughts more precisely known.

I don't see anything different about those two questions aside from a little semantics. When I say, "Has, who do you suspect?", I'd say that makes it pretty obvious that I'm not clear on who he suspects and I want to know. The addition you've said I should have added seems completely trivial to me. Also, I don't see why it would be a problem if someone's motive for asking a question was unclear initially anyway. I could even see it helping.

[Mizzy]

I don't understand why it's a problem to have a post (or several) that contains only a question. It's certainly not unusual. I'm hardly going to add something else to a post that contains a question if it's not needed. Also, I don't understand why you consider it a problem to ask a question about a conversation I haven't participated in up until then. Sometimes I need to ask a question before having a firm opinion on some issue.

I've already said why. Because a) it's letting others generate content for you, and b) it makes it look like all you do is question others before coming out with an opinion, making it look like you are scum who finds it difficult to know what to say before someone else says it for you.

If you've read my posts, I've already explained why I asked that question. Glork had already posted after hasdgfas's response, so I hardly think I was treading on his toes or limiting information.

Oh, I do know why you said you asked, but the reason came later, after you asked the question and it was brought up. I just feel that you are leading the witnesses, so to speak.

I'm not making an excuse, as I don't think I need one. I just felt like you accusing me of not scumhunting seemed very left field considering the number of people who you could have reasonably accused of the same.

And I do think we need more scumhunting from others, MafiaSSK and Elmo, specifically, but there's a difference between yours and theirs. They are lurking and giving basically zero content, where you are using questions to have other players generate content for you.

I can hardly believe I'm seeing this. Yes, I was looking for him to produce content about his suspicions, because I felt I didn't have any real idea who he suspected, that seems kind of a routine thing to do when you feel that way about someone. Your argument here would apply if I'd only been asking questions and not providing any opinions of my own, which might even be close to one of Tar's tells, but you've said yourself that you don't like how I've been giving my two cents apparently without scumhunting.

I wouldn't have seen the question to him as scummy if you had, as I said, mentioned WHY you were asking. Instead, it looks like you were using his answers to make it look like you're contributing. As for opinions of your own, most of them are after someone else has already expressed the same opinion, or saying you feel exactly the opposite of someone else's already expressed opinion. I see very little new ground from you, and I would expect new ground from a Patricktown.

I don't see anything different about those two questions aside from a little semantics. When I say, "Has, who do you suspect?", I'd say that makes it pretty obvious that I'm not clear on who he suspects and I want to know. The addition you've said I should have added seems completely trivial to me. Also, I don't see why it would be a problem if someone's motive for asking a question was unclear initially anyway. I could even see it helping.

Half of the game is all about semantics. While it seems trivial to you, it gives the town more information about your thoughts and motives, which is pretty important in my opinion.

[Patrick]

I've already said why. Because a) it's letting others generate content for you, and b) it makes it look like all you do is question others before coming out with an opinion, making it look like you are scum who finds it difficult to know what to say before someone else says it for you.

Well, like it or not, this is something I do all the time.

Oh, I do know why you said you asked, but the reason came later, after you asked the question and it was brought up. I just feel that you are leading the witnesses, so to speak.

I'm not sure where to go with this. I've explained why I asked, you for some reason find that hard to believe.

I wouldn't have seen the question to him as scummy if you had, as I said, mentioned WHY you were asking. Instead, it looks like you were using his answers to make it look like you're contributing. As for opinions of your own, most of them are after someone else has already expressed the same opinion, or saying you feel exactly the opposite of someone else's already expressed opinion. I see very little new ground from you, and I would expect new ground from a Patricktown.

When I ask someone who they suspect, it's because I'm not clear on who they suspect and would like to know. I don't see how that can be anything but obvious. Since you bring up what you'd expect from me, have you actually read any of my games before stating that you think I'm playing out of character?

Half of the game is all about semantics. While it seems trivial to you, it gives the town more information about your thoughts and motives, which is pretty important in my opinion.

As above, I don't think the suggested change would actually have offered any extra information. I don't really think you're scum, but you're really reaching with this.

[Patrick]

Unvote

[scotmany12]

hasdgfas, I really don't understand your recent vote on MafiaSSK or any of the content of your past few posts. Back in Post 164 you mentioned that you were most suspicious of rolandgarros, Glork, PokerFace, and this fourth person who you couldn't remember (we now know this to be MafiaSSK). You seem to be basing your vote on SSK on the fact that he created a pro-town list of people based on vibes and hasn't done any form of scum-hunting. Glork also made a pro-town list of people with at least one of those people on his list being based on gut and according to you he hasn't done much scum-hunting either but you've never voted for him or even FoS-ed him. Is there any reason why?

Incog, he's on my list of suspicions, so that equates into a FoS for everyone on it, even though I might not have formally said so. The reason I'm not voting him is that I'm currently suspicious of him mostly on gut, not enough to get a good case on him, but if you'd prefer a formal FoS, I can do that too.

I don't get this. What you are attacking SSK has done, so has Glork. But yet your suspicions of Glork is mostly gut...Why should they be held to separate standards? When SSK posts a short list of who he has town vibes from, its scummy. Glork also does this, but yet your suspicion on him is still gut? Care to explain...

Glork, unlike SSK, has done other things besides just make a list of who seems protown. Glork also appears to be doing some scumhunting, which slightly makes up for his list of protowners. SSK has done absolutely nothing, which is unacceptable.

I totally disagree with this. Look over Glork's post. I haven't seen him truly pressure someone yet. On;y time where I think he actually truly scumhunted is when he attack Incog for using TBH. Once again, it appears you are holding these two to separate standards. As long as Glork posts, he is fine...It just doesn't seem right to me. I'm viewing you as our best lynch candidate right now, so

Unvote, Vote: hasdgfas

.

[Ether]

I'll add that hasdgfas's contradiction over Mizzy could also suggest that he was forcing his case against PF to follow the tide, and didn't actually believe in the tell he was using. (I'd like to say that I wanted his response to the associative tell first, but actually I was just in a hurry to post last time.) I agree with Patrick's 209.

I asked for questioning purposes. I wasn't sure if you were finding some tiny scumtells. I really don't like those. However, it does make sesnse that it could lead to accosiation with each other.

Okay. So who's scum? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than question the validity of an individual tell every 72 hours?

I don't get Mizzy's case at all.

Not gonna lie, Scot's Cowvote disturbs me.

I am limited access until I do my homework.

[MafiaSSK]

I asked for questioning purposes. I wasn't sure if you were finding some tiny scumtells. I really don't like those. However, it does make sesnse that it could lead to accosiation with each other.

Okay. So who's scum? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than question the validity of an individual tell every 72 hours?

Its really hard for me to pick out a really scummish person in this game. Its so complex. And I don't have anything better to do than that.

[Incognito]

@Patrick:

What was the reason for the unvote?

scotmany, I don't understand this post:

I totally disagree with this. Look over Glork's post. I haven't seen him truly pressure someone yet. On;y time where I think he actually truly scumhunted is when he attack Incog for using TBH. Once again, it appears you are holding these two to separate standards. As long as Glork posts, he is fine...It just doesn't seem right to me. I'm viewing you as our best lynch candidate right now, so

Unvote, Vote: hasdgfas

.

Your whole post looks like you're attacking Glork but then at the very end of it, you place a vote on Glo-.... I mean hasdgfas. Is there any reason why you feel that he's the best lynch candidate?

@Elmo, Tarhalindur, and PokerFace

: Some time this fucking year would be nice, ya know.