Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Netlava]

/confirm

[Netlava]

Vote: CF Riot

Misleading statistic + talking about voting Charter while applying said statistic to hadhfang

[Netlava]

Oh yeah, FOS charter for questioning the assumption that there are 3 mafia in the game while making that assumption himself.

[Netlava]

I think what LG meant was that both Charter & CF Riot did something that was suspicious (at least at this point in the game) but do not appear to be on the same team.

After much thorough deliberation, I have concluded that Charter's act was the scummier of the two.

Unvote, Vote: Charter

@ CF Riot - you do realize that your stat is inaccurate, right?

[Netlava]

Doesn't make you look scummy but where did you get this? I don't think he even mentioned me.

His SK proposal seemed out of the blue, so I just assumed that because that was what I was thinking.

The stat seems to be more of an example of regression towards the mean.

[Netlava]

Hmm, I agree, Had's late vote is suspicious. It seems counterintuitive to vote Charter for some SK discussion while shrugging off Charter's blatant assumption contradiction earlier.

@ CF Riot: I don't get it bc there's no reason for it whatsoever. Unless you're scum.

[Netlava]

Oh jeez. I really hate to pull a "yeah what he said" but Mac read my post exactly the way I meant it.

I find it odd how you didn't explain it yourself.

CF Riot, what do you think of had's bandwagon? Of Charter's contradiction?

[Netlava]

Well, I think the standard procedure is to leave had alive and watch him closely.

@ CF Riot: Thanks for the response. What do you think of Charter's assumption?

A good place to start vote blackberry because I didn't get a super kickass role.

Uh, not a good place to start.

While I have some concerns about him (flip-flopping on charter's triple post and CF Riot's misleading statistic on him)

That's interesting, because CF Riot's misleading stat should reflect badly on CF Riot and not had.

And, based on post #83, I would almost expect Had to be mafia and CFRiot a townie he is setting up for a fall. Maybe he is trying to use it as an argument against Charter, but I am not convinced. I have to admit that nothing he says is entirely unreasonable, but the gut feeling is there at the moment.

Not sure what you mean here. But this post is odd because of the way you swing back and forth several times.

[Netlava]

Interesting sequence here...

Doesn't look random to me. There you go being shifty again Batt.

Battousai I'm also waiting for you to come in and clear your name.

Riot, it appears you are quite predisposed to thinking batt is scum, and quite eager to get him to talk. The amount of attention you give to batt for minor things is inordinate. What are you, Batt's partner in crime?

It would if CF Riot turned up scum. It would look like he was trying to convince everyone that Had isn't scum.

Like anyone's going to get convinced by that It is a link, but since baddies benefit from pinning down townies to themselves, I would think that if CF Riot flipped scum, it would reflect better on had.

[Netlava]

I think it's better if we save BB's role speculation for scum. I have an inkling what his role is, but I'm not going to reveal it.

@ CF Riot: Well, I don't see anything wrong with trying to get batt to talk, but the way you talk to him makes it seem as if you already know whether batt is scum. You are at the top of my list of suspicion atm, but for quite delicate reasons. Do you know what I'm referring to?

[Netlava]

I think had is scum, judging by the way he claimed. Maybe we should lynch him today anyway. Besides, the worst case scenario is losing an unknown sanity cop, which isn't

that

bad, is it? I'm sure my excellent scum hunting abilities will make up for it.

@ Had: Who do you find suspicious?

[Netlava]

Sometimes, but frequently not, according to the wiki.

[Netlava]

@ Mac: I'm not sure whether had is scum. Currently, I think that he is being too complacent for someone who has just claimed, but I'll probably have to wait and see. You seem to be quite eager to believe his role claim.

Ok this is ridiculous. Why on earth would we lynch Black Berry?

Seems overly dramatic. I don't agree with a BB lynch either, but your post makes it seem as if BB is unlynchable.

@ Walnut: How guilty do you think BB is?

[Netlava]

CF Riot's post 71:

I'd also like to add that I'm eating the most delicious apple right now. So good.

I saw it as a doc breadcrumb, with apple being the trigger word, except for the fact that it makes no sense for a doc to breadcrumb whatsoever. From my (limited) experience as mafia, I have been tempted to drop fake breadcrumbs, before realizing that doc breadcrumbs make no sense.

[Netlava]

What if he really was a doc and it was a real breadcrumb? Then if the scum wasn't observant you just outed a town power role. What do you think should happen if CF is found dead tomorrow as the doc?

The difference between a doc and a goon dropping fake breadcrumbs is that the doc risks getting caught out and NK'd whereas scum do not. A doc has no reason to ever breadcrumb. Scum on the other hand can always use a breadcrumb later (if they want) when they fake a power role claim, but do not have to worry about getting NK'd. Plus, a townie who realizes that something is a breadcrumb would be hard-pressed to point it out on the off-chance that the breadcrumb is legit. All things considered, I decided that if CF Riot were the actual doc, then he would not have breadcrumbed. And if CF Riot happens to be the doc, then he shouldn't have breadcrumbed in the first place. Also note that his breadcrumb is a relatively strong one due to its sudden irrelevancy.

[Netlava]

Hm BB brings up a good point - I think Macavenger may be scum. I don't have anything concrete against him, but his tone is more passive this time around and he doesn't seem to be quite as resolute with what he's saying.

With CF Riot, I actually found him to be somewhat pro-town overall, even with his fake "breadcrumb" (which is why I didn't vote him yet). The breadcrumb itself can be questioned, though I still think it's a reasonably strong one. However his reaction strikes me a being scummy because his attempt at casting suspicion on set him up perfectly to jump on my bandwagon, if votes were to come my way. It was more of a "I am beginning to indicate my suspicions" post, but he never really comes out and says his suspicions directly.

Charter: Some of his comments are giant question marks, but I think he's town in this game because he seems to believe what he's saying.

Unvote, Vote: CF Riot

Walnut: Not sure about him, prodding inactives is good. But scum often try to get exploit this and get inactives lynched too. Probably a null tell. I couldn't tell if he was trying to get BB lynched or using it as a threat.

Batt: I thought his questions were suspicious because they I thought they were obvious points that I had considered. I also find his interaction with riot strange.

[Netlava]

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I think just for that, you get the honor of being on the second spot on my scum list. It appears that you've already made up your mind, and your attempt to cast off the suspicion as a personal vendetta is an indirect way of protecting CF Riot. Furthermore, last game doesn't have anything to do with this game. If you check the last game, you'll notice that I did change opinions on CF Riot, which means that I do try to keep an open mind.

Looking back through the thread, I also noticed that you never actually answered the question what are your reasons for bringing up the possibility of SK. Also, the way you've voted is suspicious. You voted Charter for one particular issue way back while ignoring the wealth of new info. Instead, you've been affirming your suspicions with comments such as:

My vote has been on him for a while because he keeps doing it.

without actually pushing his bandwagon.

[Netlava]

Here's my reply to CF Riot's post. I don't think it was ever in doubt that I was going to reply.

First, his accusation centers around some "contradictions." I could go back and point out why they're technically not contradictions e.g. "I think the standard procedure is to leave him alive and watch him closely" vs "Maybe we should lynch him [Hadh] anyways." However, the bigger point is that much of this is speculation. In this case, I was debating whether a hadh lynch was plausible after all, since many people still had hadhfang on top of their list of suspicions.

Post 46: Misquotes LG's post, adding my name when no reference to me had been made.

I was guessing at his intention based off of my own line of thought. "I think what he meant..."

If there is no scenario or reason for a REAL doc to ever breadcrumb, why then would that be a tactic a scum would try?

I believe that scum are more likely to make that mistake because they aren't in a position to get NK'd or get called out for it. Thus the potential rewards (possibility of backing up a claim) outweigh the far lesser risks. If worse comes to worse, they can shrug if off as an inside joke.

This brings us to the present. All things considered, I see only two possibilities. Either Netlava is scum trying very hard to make me appear scummy and push my lynch, or he has the worst case of tunnel vision I have ever seen. I see the first as being far more likely.

Explain how these two options are scummy. Also, it's an either/or fallacy. I could be a townie trying to push your lynch. How is pushing your lynch scummy?

Also, you added some dramatic words such as "manipulating and scummy" and "calm and calculating" in your post. I don't think you've demonstrated such a link.

[Netlava]

Part II

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I have a number of problems with this post. First, the "I really want Netlava to defend himself first" is redundant. Of course I'm going to defend myself! Consequently, it made your post seem superficial. The second problem is the way you asked the question "Did he hound you..." when you could have just checked the last thread yourself. It seemed like a set-up. Also, I think you may have skimmed the last thread already when you said that you had such suspicions, which further made the question unnecessary.

Now that I've answered Riot's accusations, would you answer mine?

I doubt he would do all of that research and write that mammoth of a post (173) if he were scum.

Hmm, last game I pointed out that one of the reasons I thought Mac was town for his long post. But then I noticed that hadh made increasingly long posts.

CF Riot has pointed out how much time he spent on his posts and how long his posts are multiple times in this game. Check his analysis of hadhfang for some examples.

Netlava likely didn't even read my post, just skimmed it, and jumped down my throat as a result of it, he seems way to jumpy and way too willing to flip around on his decisions.

First I'm "tunnel-visioned" and now I'm "flip-flopping?" And yes, I did read all two lines of your post.

---

Anyways my list looks like this:
1. CF Riot
2. Lord Gurgi
3. Macavenger

Macavenger claims the 3 spot over Batt for the use of the word "tempt" as well as my gut feeling. I don't think that's how a townie would think. A townie would be "unsure," but tempted suggests that there is something holding you back, such as prior knowledge of my alignment. Plus, CF Riot seems to be amused at the Riot-batt pairing.

[Netlava]

Somehow I'm the one that's OMGUSing

Your scumlist is basically just composed of people who happen to be attacking you, and you're making up ridiculously silly reasons to suspect us.

Attacking my entire list? Seems like you're just disagreeing with me on principle. Does this also mean that you think the attacks on LG are baseless (other than riot's or your own)?

What does the town think? (not mac, lg, or cf)

[Netlava]

@ Mac: For you to characterize LG's post as an attack confirms my suspicions that you're just disagreeing with me on principle. LG's post was actually a veiled attack that he tried to disguise as "giving me a chance." Having realized this, I don't think you would shrug off the entire case on LG without a second's thought if you were town.

[Netlava]

That LG tries to disguise the attack as something else is what's scummy, not the attack itself.

[Netlava]

The whole "hounding riot" theory isn't a legitimate concern, as it was invented by LG to throw out my accusations

[Netlava]

For now.. Netlava... I noticed you were/are after CF pretty hard, independent of LG's words. Is there no explanation? Are you saying that you are NOT, in fact, aggressively pursuing CF Riot?

Well, the explanation would be that I think Riot is scum.

[Netlava]

Nope, hounding refers to the possibility that my suspicion of Riot is a carry-over from last game, which isn't true.

[Netlava]

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.

Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?

[Netlava]

- Mac says accusation of LG was omgus and votes me for it
- Mac says I think LG is scum
Anyone notice the inconsistency here?

---

If you had time for that, why not even a mention of what I said in your first post?

To throw a hitch onto LG's evil plans

The just the fact that he has, but the way he has singled me out along with his other actions make me think it's far more likely he is scum.

Please explain

I personally think you have 0 case against LG. Your reasons for Mac being added to the list are terrible too, also looks OMGUS to me.

Explain

What is the Riot-batt pairing? What are you talking about there?

Earlier, I speculated on the possibility of a riot-batt scum team, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

---

List update:
CF Riot moves down the ladder, whereas walnut moves up:
1. LG
2. macavenger
3. walnut

[Netlava]

Walnut's place on the list is a bit preliminary. He is the third most scummy person in the game after CF Riot leaves the list for attempts at distancing and trying to buddy up to me. But the list update is mainly to reflect CF Riot's departure from the list. Judging from the reactions I have gotten to my list, my list seems to be wrong on one occasion, and CF Riot seems more pro-town now because he is scumhunting more honestly.

No. You voted for LG, which means you are saying he is scum, but Mac thinks your REASONING is OMGUS.

If I actually think LG is scum, but my reasoning is OMGUS, then how is that scummy? Note that Mac made this omgus reason a pretty important piece in his vote on me.

Agreeing with you shouldn't be scummy, so it must be the attack on you and if that's the case, I see it as OMGUS.

Netlava 212: When exactly did you see Mac doing this? It doesn't look to me like he ever did agree with you that LG's post was a veiled attack.

He characterized my accusation of LG as OMGUS.

Netlava 229: At one point, right in the middle of all your multiple attacks against me, you said "I've actually been leaning town on Riot until now." Where does that fall into you pursuing me so aggressively for thinking I'm scum?

I've been getting both a bunch of pro-town and scum tells from you.

Netlava 232: Major BS. Are you actually saying "What if I'm lying?" as a defense??

No, this is inconsistent with Mac's accusation (OMGUSing LG). You should think it through.

Netlava 244: No, that's not inconsistent at all. You have him on your number 2 spot of your LoS (at this point in the game), Mac assumes you think he's scum. What about that could be inconsistent?

If, according to Mac, I'm scum for OMGUSing LG, that means I don't actually think LG is scum, correct?

How is not defending yourself foiling LG's plans? (Which I don't believe exist.)

LG pretended to want to hear my defense.

I still think it's a good idea..Smile I do better with one conversation at a time!

It's a good idea if we switch to Mac and LG, because they are the scum!

[Netlava]

So, CF Riot is buddying and distancing (both scummy actions) and this makes him less scummy? You also haven't in any way justified why Walnut is scummy.

Whoops, I meant Walnut is distancing and buddying up.
---

A more general defense:

First, I believe the general reason for my supposed scummy-ness is having bad reasons to accuse people. This I will show to be false by giving a more detailed and clearer explanation of my cases. And really, this is a pretty foolish reason to be voting, because a townie would be just as likely to have "stupid" reasons for accusing people. The scum have been repeating this theme over and over, and classifying the next thing I say under this theme - to the point where it becomes predictable and obvious. Plus, why would I, if I were scum, go through all the trouble of pushing a lynch that hasn't received any support?

---

Lord Gurgi:
- Did not answer what the point of bringing up the SK discussion was (avoids this question a second time later)
- Votes Charter way back, clings to this vote, affirms his suspicions of Charter multiple times, yet does not push the bandwagon
- Post 174 -

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

In this post, he pretends to want to hear my defense and then subtly attacks my accusations of Riot.
1. "I really want Netlava to defend himself first" - False concern as it should be obvious that I'm going to defend myself. What he's really trying to do is make his intended bandwagoning less obvious.
2. "(I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) " - And just how did you get these suspicions? I'm guessing you skimmed the thread of the last game. So why ask "Did he hound you?" when you already know the answer? Set-up! You could have just stated it outright.
- Disguises the post as "giving me a chance" and "due turn"
- Votes me "until I provide some decent explanation." More like until I get lynched and hopefully no one notices right!? Doesn't push my wagon.
- Dissapearing act enables him to dodge a bunch of my accusations so that I have to summarize them again for him.

---

Macavenger:
- Major shift in playstyle
- Passive tone, does not believe what he's saying (though he later explains that I've been "amazingly less scummy").
- Overuse of the "your case sux, therefore you are scum" and "you OMGUS scum" themes. He classifies everything under these categories methodically.
- Does not push my wagon, but rather disagrees with everything I say next and continues this methodical classification process
- Inconsistency #1
Realizes an important fundamental concept in my case against LG, yet shrugs off the entire case. Does not even comment on it other than "OMGUS."

Mac later explains that he saw that I saw LG's post as an attack, but LG's post itself is not an attack. I don't buy it! In my initial descriptions of LG's post, I don't actually describe it as an attack, but mostly point out why the redudancy makes it superficial. Mac must be psychic or something.
- Inconsistency #2
Post 226 -

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.

This reveals that he knows I think LG is scum, which may seem obvious to other people. However, this contradicts one major reason for voting me - OMGUS of LG. If the bulk of why he thinks I'm scum is because of false cases and OMGUS, then why would I actually think LG is scum? Consider this scenario, which is Mac's supposed POV: I'm scum throwing out cases for OMGUS and other fake reasons. I don't actually believe my targets are scum.

Mac later explains that this is because it's common to assume the person is town. I assume people are town in general, yes, but not when it directly conflicts with my accusations.

[Netlava]

Hmm... conflict within my own list. I don't see scum making such a move so Macavenger loses the 2 spot.

Anyways, I agree with the Walnut wagon.

Vote: Walnut

[Netlava]

EBWOP:

Unvote, vote: walnut

[Netlava]

Mac accused someone on my list, and I don't think bussing in this case is likely. This is also a bold move to make as scum, so I decided that Mac isn't on the top 3 list.

My new list:
1. LG
2. --empty--
3. walnut

I haven't decided who occupies the new slot yet. Maybe CF Riot gets it by default

[Netlava]

I think CF Riot gets the spot for now. The Walnut/Riot link is somewhat strong. The main problem with Riot is that earlier in his accusation, he put his third spot on his list as "Walnut/Blackberry" as opposed to just Walnut. Plus, this goes against his dramatic defense of Blackberry.

[Netlava]

Instead of putting just walnut on his list, Riot puts "walnut/bb." The inclusion of BB is strange because it goes against his "why on earth would we lynch BB" post. This move probably helps him retain extra flexibility to support his scumbuddy if BB were to come closer to getting lynched.

[Netlava]

I'm not sure why it's bad to bring up the SK first, and not bad to bring up the size of the mafia first. Could someone explain it to me?

You said that it was better to play it conservative and assume there are 3 mafia + 1 SK. What are the advantages of doing so?

...Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn...

Walnut, what do you think of this?

@ Shadowgirl: I explained a lot of stuff in earlier posts. Should help answer your questions.

I think Netlava very much had tunnel vision on me at that point. He would make short comments about other people, but no real accusations or questions to them. 90% of his focus was me.

Why is this bad again?

Post 212: Netlava how in the seven heavens, is it possible to attack you by giving you a chance?

Explained earlier. Repeatedly.

Post 225: Let me get this straight, you won’t disprove the theory, because it’s not a theory because I made it? Do you not defend yourself because you can’t do it logically, or is this some kind of beyond stupid town play?

It's not a legitimate theory - simple as that. CF Riot, do you think LG's theory has any merit? Interestingly, riot did not comment...

Post 232: Once again, I’m scum because I’m playing scummy because I’m town? Maybe? This is the point where all of Netlava’s reasoning is gone. What little there was to begin with.

Uh, I showed my reasoning behind this earlier. This thread is 13 pages long, you know.

Post 244: Okay, now you’ve totally lost me, you comment on CF Riot, not on Walnut, and somehow this moves Walnut up? Also where you ask for explanations, I don’t think it’s them that needs to explain, you have been claiming CF Riot is scum since page 2. Further, you’ve never even spelled out how I am scum aside from one single post. Care to find some other evidence?

I never claimed anyone is scum on page 2. And the evidence against you is plenty.

Post 297: So, please clarify, Mac accused someone on your list, therefore not scum? Why are you voting for your number three suspect and not your number one?

I don't think he would pause just to bus his scum buddy. And I would vote for you if there were a wagon on you.

3. Macavenger: Yes, for those of you going *gasp* I don't trust his constant defense of me, also he had a relatively short lived time on Netlava's list. I'd also like your opinion of this Macavenger.

Now you point this out? I didn't think Mac was being objective and it seemed like he shrugged off the LG case without any thought just so he could use it as fodder for OMGUS and "weak" blanket labels.

[Netlava]

A few things that I skipped over...

Questions:
@Netlava, could you explain 59? Why did you already have suspicions for CF Riot?
@Netlava, is post 82 also scummy? Is it more scummy than what I did?

59 = his misleading stat
82 = looks ok, not as scummy as what you did

Post 258: No, scum have worse reasons, because they know their reasons are manufactured.

Scum's top priority is to play for appearances, so they choose the wagon and fabricated reasons that look best on paper.

Not seeing how this is a Walnut/Riot link. It's possible you're correct that Riot is trying to keep his options flexible there, but I'd consider this (like most things you bring up) a pretty minor point at best.

How is this minor? Riot was very emphatic about not lynching BB; now he admits BB's actions were still scummy.

[Netlava]

Netlava: Could you give me the post where Riot says that we shouldn't lynch BB and the post where he includes a possible bb/walnut scumpair?

Post 139 & post 173

It is worse in your situation because I don't think you actually are a tunnel visioned townie, I think you were intentionally focusing on me to try to entice a wagon against me.

I don't think I'm tunnel-visioned, but either way I don't think tunnel-vision is more indicative of scum. I suppose scum are more opportunistic than anything.

[Netlava]

I didn't see the need to say again what I have already said.

Concerning the SK thing, I only brought it up because everyone was assuming that there were 3 mafia. I specifically said that in a 12 player game there is usually 3 mafia or 2 mafia and an SK. I wasn't trying to stir paranoia. I was just saying that there are other possibilities.

You said it was better to play it conservative and assume 4. Why?

But more importantly, why are you avoiding this question so much?

[Netlava]

Not convinced by this reason

I have responded to all the suspicion. If there's anything I missed, feel free to point it out.

[Netlava]

I don't think battousai is scum.

[Netlava]

Reasons, thesp?

Will claim later if there's no chance of Walnut getting lynched.

[Netlava]

At L-2, with a non-voter requesting a claim. That means time to claim.

Figures the scum would so interested.

[Netlava]

Reasons for suspecting me?

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Assuming I were to flip town, how would that change your list of suspicion?

[Netlava]

Tinsley pops up when his name is called

This applies to LG, except he doesn't answer much of the accusations.

[Netlava]

Walnut needs a lynch. He's spent much of this game discussing how convinced he's growing rather than searching for tells. Plus, his vote on had is in stark contrast with his playstyle.

[Netlava]

Also, no one hammer plz. Thesp hasn't given any reasons for his vote.

[Netlava]

I will claim. I'm just postponing it until it becomes inevitable that I will be lynched.

You seem unusually curious.

[Netlava]

Claim=vanilla

Batt's posts seem genuine to me. I would put LG, walnut, and cf riot above him.

Anyways, I believed I've addressed everything in my defense. The "random vote changing" is just the change in opinion as the game progresses and my tendency to commit too early. There's no reason for me to do it as scum - it looks bad either way.

[Netlava]

Also, it's not too late to run up walnut.

[Netlava]

It is clear to me that Netlava switched suspicion to Walnut when Walnut became the #2 target, to divert attention.

I must have incredible powers of anticipation then.

[Netlava]

Lame.

Go town.

[Netlava]

Hmm, may as well respond to CF Riot's post.

I said I think you are scum because you were pushing my lynch way too hard for the amount evidence you had.

Oh right, I pushed your lynch too hard. I guess it's only fair that I get OMGUS slapped to every post I make. And, like I said, pushing your lynch isn't scummy. It's not that difficult to make up tells.

@ Camn, you should unvote if you don't actually think I'm scum. It could force the scum to overextend in pushing my lynch.

@ Fark, you managed to find one reason for your vote and you want to hear from Thesp? My scumminess isn't implicit, you know. You should explain yourself too.

Netlava's claim doesn't change my vote. His reluctance when all he had was "vanilla town" strengthens it in fact.

No, I'm just making the optimal play for the town. I don't want to roleclaim if Walnut's is going to get lynched. Considering the fact that the scum (eg LG), might actually have thought that I may have been the doctor.

Still, no new evidence to change my current LoS.
Confirm Vote: Netlava

What's the point of this? You're just acting now.

[Netlava]

@ Shadowgirl, what do you think of the walnut and netlava wagons right now? I noticed your vote is still on battousai.

[Netlava]

Can't believe we were not going to lynch the guy who suggested lynching a claimed cop.

I was questioning to general tendency to for cop claims to be off-limits for lynches D1. In retrospect, yes that was a bad post, but I guess that's the price for free thinking.

[Netlava]

I said I think you are scum because you were pushing my lynch way too hard for the amount evidence you had.

Actually, I wasn't even pushing your lynch at that point.

[Netlava]

Quit trying to make my post seem as if it's something it's not.

My post was actually a resolution not to post deliberately controversial posts in the future unless discussion is seriously lagging. (Discussion was lagging a bit at that point, since everyone and their mother was putting hadhfang on the top of their LOS)

[Netlava]

Also, such self-righteous statements as "I have a right..." are wrong. This is a game, so I'm supposed to be trying influence your opinions, or be suspicious of them.

[Netlava]

I just noticed something... IIRC walnut doesn't respond to CF Riot's arguments as much, but mainly focuses on others in his defenses.

[Netlava]

So you're saying that the reason that you suggested lynching Had even though he'd claimed cop was because you were trying to be deliberately provocative, in order to get conversation going?

I'm pretty impatient

[Netlava]

Apologies for being a distraction. I'll just save you guys some time. Good luck.

Unvote, vote: netlava

[Netlava]

LG is obvscum.

[Netlava]

Well, this was a very fun game. One nagging question though:

CF Riot, was that actually an intended breadcrumb?