Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[charter]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

I'm not really liking this post. All you did when pointing it out the first time was set yourself up for a "but I was right about Netlava, listen to me" defense in case we lynch netlava and he's town. Now you seem to be reiterating it which I don't understand. If he is scummy, there shouldn't be any problems with lynching him. I won't lie, I've been biased towards him this game because he helped me out the most last game, but I'll do a reread without this bias.

Had, you've been awfully quiet recently, what are your thoughts on this matter, or any other matter?

[Hadhfang]

I've been quite busy recently, sincere apologies (We have sports day and I have been given the task of helping organise it, along with a school production's constant rehearsals) I'll ahve a thorough re-read, and then post my thoughts as soon as possible.

[CF Riot]

OK, continuing where I left off.

Hadh 208: The part of this post where you are arguing about your cop claim is scummy. If you are town, there is no need for sentences like "for all you know I could be scum who has just made that hypothesis to make it seem like I am town." Everyone else will decide whether they suspect you or not. A townie doesn't have any reason to say why he could be suspected himself.

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.

Camn 216: While I don't agree with a "lets all focus on one person" plan, I think Camn really thought this as a good idea in her mind. I disagree with the plan, but don't find proposing the plan scummy.

I originally mentioned Netlava's vote (against me) seeming OMGUS to me, and a few different people have had mixed opinions on whether it was or not. To be clear, I don't think his cases themselves are what's OMGUS. He's been making them from the start regardless of what I do. But what I pointed out was they were all only questions and comments to me the entire game, but then

after

I mention suspicion of Netlava,

then

he decides to switch his vote to me. Maybe OMGUS isn't the right term to describe this, but it feels like Netlava was giving me excess pressure hoping someone else would run with it or I would make a bad play, then there could be a case against me while he still had his vote on Charter. While I was defending myself or questioning other people, all I got was pressure. When I question Netlava, that's when I got the vote.

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?

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

Charter 235: Huh? Why was the order people voted Hadhfang interesting but not information giving? That excuse seems bogus.

Tinsley 242: I haven't felt like you were lurking this whole game but now that I think about it you don't really have many opinions in on what's going on in the game atm. Anxious to know your updated thoughts.

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?

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

The way you single me out is scummy because for the whole first half of the game you do it while keeping your vote on Charter and making comments like, "I've been leaning town on him," but once I challenge you for suspecting me now you're sure enough of me to vote me. You also not only question my actions, you question ME about OTHER people's actions, instead of asking them about it.

That's just it, I don't think you have any grounds to suspect LG on. I'm not seeing his post as a veiled attack in any way. If anything, saying your pursuit of me is a vendetta gives the idea that you're not scum trying to get me lynched, you're just a townie with bad blood. I also don't believe he was demanding you respond, I think he was saying, "This is a good point, but I won't let it dictate my vote until Netlava has a fair chance to explain." I know you've given reasons for voting Mac, but (sorry for being harsh) they're all dumb reasons. You also pull them out after he suspects you, thus OMGUS.

My disappearance from the LoS confuses me as much as Walnut being added. Everyone's already asked for explanation so I guess I'll just wait.

Walnut 248: If you think Netlava is being mislynched, speak out against it. If you think he is being justly lynched, don't give disclaimers for being a part of it. This post feels like distancing without actually being a part of the case.

==========

Finally, caught up. Netlava's actions before my breakdown of his play were questionable, but now that he's under some pressure he's started throwing mud in every direction. Most of his accusations are either unexplained or beyond stretching. I'm not sure how to interpret me leaving his list. I didn't feel I should be on there in the first place, but that doesn't justify me going from #1 to gone. My only guess is that he felt his case against me wouldn't hold, so he had to try and throw suspicion elsewhere to avoid too much building on himself.

Walnut is continuing to set off my scumdar, but always with small enough blips to question myself. Still, he's nowhere near as scummy as Netlava.

**Mod:

ShadowGirl has asked for a replacement in another game I'm in. I don't know if she was just wanting out of that specific game, or if she's too busy for MS in general. Can we

Prod ShadowGirl

please?

[camn]

I think Camn really thought this as a good idea in her mind.

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

[Macavenger]

Hadh 208: The part of this post where you are arguing about your cop claim is scummy. If you are town, there is no need for sentences like "for all you know I could be scum who has just made that hypothesis to make it seem like I am town." Everyone else will decide whether they suspect you or not. A townie doesn't have any reason to say why he could be suspected himself.

Disagree. Scum has no reason to do it either. It's a null tell.

[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!

[ShadowGirl]

Sorry, I've replaced out of one game to try and make more time for the others I'm in. D:

I'll make a post tommorow.

[Macavenger]

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.

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.

[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.

[Macavenger]

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.

So yeah, this is completely wrong. I don't think I need to say anything else about that, it's really obvious.

Plus, why would I, if I were scum, go through all the trouble of pushing a lynch that hasn't received any support?

Because you're the only lynch that has very much support right now?

Macavenger:
- Major shift in playstyle

If you're going to use meta, use it correctly. This game is far more typical of my playstyle than the original. I do not typically go around yelling my nuts off at people and screaming for everyone to bandwagon them. I was not at all exaggerating when I said you were the best Day 1 lynch I'd ever seen last time, and I played rather differently than normal out of frustration with people not lynching you.

- Passive tone, does not believe what he's saying (though he later explains that I've been "amazingly less scummy").

Specifics?

- Overuse of the "your case sux, therefore you are scum" and "you OMGUS scum" themes. He classifies everything under these categories methodically.

Actually I've onlybeen classifying things that you've done that way, to my recollection. And those are legitimate scumtells.

- Does not push my wagon, but rather disagrees with everything I say next and continues this methodical classification process

How the hell is voting for you and making arguments about why what you're doing is scummy not pushing your wagon?

- 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.

LG's post looks like an attack on you at a quick glance. It wasn't until I went back and reread the exchange more carefully that I realized he was taking a wait and see more than an aggressive attitude. The point that you jumped all over him for a post where he asked for a defense from you remains no matter how you want to word it, and is still scummy.

- 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.

So basically, the alternative to what I said would have been basically "You're scum, so your argument doesn't count." Which would have been pretty funny because that's the exact argument I was criticizing. It's implied that you're going to claim to be town, and I maintain that there was nothing unusual about my wording.

---

Your new case against LG is a lot better than previously. Why didn't it show up until now?

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Netlava 4 (CF Riot, Lord Gurgi, Macavenger, Battousai)
charter 2 (farside22, ShadowGirl)
Walnut 1 (Hadhfang)
camn 1 (charter)
CF Riot 1 (Netlava)

Not Voting:

charter, Walnut, camn

12 alive = 7 to lynch!

_________________________________________________

I would just like to remind you all of a couple of the rules under Miscellaneous:

5.

Prods of missing players will be issued upon request or as I see fit. A player who has been prodded 3 times is subject to possible replacement without further notice.

6.

If you anticipate being unavailable for more than a 48-hour period, please post a notice to that effect in the thread. Treat this game as a commitment. Be considerate – don’t leave us hanging.

This is not aimed at anyone specifically...just a reminder to all players. Thanks, guys! And remember, you can PM or IM me at any time with questions/comments/concerns.

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

It's that a foregone conclusion if you do this with any player though?

No, and that is exactly my point! I don't know whether Netlava is scum or town, but I do know that his playing style is such that could say "Hello" in such a way that half the town would want to lynch him. To give an example from a recent post that shows what I am talking about:

Battousai wrote:
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.

Making your entire answer to someone's point "rolling eyes" is ambiguous, incomplete and for some people, in some cases, irritating. This sort of thing makes you more likely to be lynched. Is it scummy? If used strategically to avoid answering a question, then yes, but it is pretty standard for Netlava to both behave like this and answer questions, so of no benefit.

Walnut 248: If you think Netlava is being mislynched, speak out against it. If you think he is being justly lynched, don't give disclaimers for being a part of it. This post feels like distancing without actually being a part of the case.

I think I covered this back in post #218:

After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

[camn]

Walnut.. are you saying Netlava is Unlynchable, then? That he always plays scummy.. and thus should never be lynched?

However.. I for one agree at this point.

I think Netlava is throwing a lot of stones, building weak cases left and right.. but probably town. I usually don't see scum grind on players like NL had been grinding on CF for the first part of this game.. so I am willing to relax the issue FOR NOW.

[farside22]

The problem with Netlava comments and findings is that they are weak for the most part. I think the case on LG was the most strongest, but the Mac case was weak. I'm not sure if Netlava isn't use to pressure, doesn't know how to really scum hunt and come up with a case or is scum himself. The biggest problem I have with Netlava is that almost everyone he is accusing is voting for him.

[charter]

Did a reread, here's my thoughts on what I saw.

Batt in 37, put's a horribly justified vote on farside
Seeing an LG - Batt connection possibly
Riot in 48, Points out Batt
Walnut in 63, massive derailing of town
Had in 66, still cant shake this...
Walnut in 79, MORE extra curricular role speculation
by post 92, Walnut has said absolutely nothing new and constructive to the town and jumps on board Had
Riot in 99, wants the rest of the town's opinion on how to test Had's claim. He's testing the waters because you never lynch an unclaimed cop day 1 (or it's at least idiotic barring extreme circumstances). At this point I'm leaning towards Had actually being the cop.
Batt 102, says he was lurking on purpose...
Walnut 137, Defends himself against BB even though there is no need to. No one listened to him since he even said he had no interest in playing.
Walnut in 137, Seems to think lynching BB is not only acceptable, but a good idea. Says that BB was deliberately trying to draw votes when pressure was building. Two things wrong with this. First I think that was BB's first or second post, so it being timed seems very unlikely to me. Second, he 'knows' BB was drawing votes away from someone else...

At this point, I stop and just read all Walnut's posts+context.
145, wishy washy about BB after Netlava questions him.
Riot in 173, I don't understand why you seem to drop all suspicion of Walnut here and set your sights on Netlava. I don't find it scummy, but why did you drop Walnut?
LG in 176, bandwagons, screams scum to me.
Walnut in 187, defends me. Don't know why. Possible scenario is because he thinks I'll go and get myself lynched like I almost did last game, flip town, then he'll be in a good spot tomorrow.

Stopped around here. The whole game, up until here, Walnut only contributes useful opinions when questioned. His posts since then have been ok, but his early posts seem really scummy. Go ahead and string me up for this,

vote walnut

[Lord Gurgi]

Charter, in specific, in 176 I voted for him, making the second vote. How is that bandwagoning? It also seems like you've got tunnel vision, considering that you

only

commented on four player's posts. There are other players in the game, why not look at them? Also, why did you drop off and only read Walnut? That is just asking for Tunnel Vision.

On the whole I don't like Netlava's posts, he throws suspicion around constantly, and I don't think that if a player acts scummy or responds with smiley faces that it is any sort of town tell, regardless of who you are.

[charter]

You seem awfully concerned with my thoughts, especially since I mentioned you just once and said a whopping four words about you. I said your vote was a bandwagon vote because your reason for voting him was "Until you provide some decent explanation for yourself, Unvote, Vote: Netlava". It was the second (I believe) vote on him, with not too steller justification. There's no actual argument there, just you casting suspicion upon Netlava.


I'm not saying anything about how scummy Netlava is or isn't. I actually commented on five players, and formed opinions on others, however, me revealing them now will NOT help lynch scum, so don't ask for them. It doesn't "seem" like I had tunnel vision, I clearly did when I said that I was only going to continue reading Walnut's posts/context. Despite saying that, I still read and commented on other players when something caught my eye. I know you noticed this fact because one of those comments was about you.

I don't like Netlava's posts either, but I don't think they are neccessarily indicitive of him being scum, but I don't think they're indicitive of town either.

[Lord Gurgi]

Charter, are you saying that I shouldn't care about your comments? You accused me of bandwagoning, I pointed out the problem with such a claim. To explain further:

However, your response to my post is in the extreme, I wanted to hold my vote until you had a chance to explain yourself and instead you jump down my throat. How the HECK is giving you a chance protecting CF Riot? Until you provide some decent explanation for yourself,

Unvote, Vote: Netlava

I meant that he had to explain his actions toward me, as well as his prior actions, which he justified by later saying I was obvscum, then saying that he never said I was scum. I've never played with Netlava before, but I'm not willing to let him off because scummy is his playstyle.

[charter]

No, if I say something about you that you disagree with, you should definately voice your concerns. I was expecting you to ask me to elaborate on my thoughts about you, but I wasn't expecting it in the manner you did, because all I said was "bandwagons" and "screams scum to me" neither of which is descriptive in the least (it wasn't meant to be, it was just me jotting down my thoughts). I don't think your reaction was unjustified, but I don't understand the need to tell me "There are other players in the game, why not look at them?". Obviously I haven't forgotten this.

I don't want to argue whether Netlava did or didn't justify accusations brought against him, or argue about his playstyle.

Argh, I have to go, this thought isn't complete. Will finish later.

[Battousai]

Netlava: "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."

??? If you thought it was an attack, don't you think it is likely someone else could read it the same way as you? Also, you say that him asking you to defend yourself is redundant. It's NOT redundant, how could any of us know for sure that what you will post next. As you later point out, LG didn't explain himself so therefore it is possible that you would skip over it. :rolls: Yes I can do that too, but that is an adequate defense. It's just something you do that extremely irrates me.

[charter]

Completely forgot what I wanted to add to my previous post, so I'll say it's complete.

[CF Riot]

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

No. Saying someone's vote is OMGUS is saying you think that person's vote is based on emotion rather than solid information. The possibilities during an OMGUS move are the person doing it is scum, therefore the attack is fake in the first place, or they are town with flawed or no reasoning behind their vote. It doesn't indicate either way if they really perceive their target as scum or not, so it is assumed that they do because that is the real reason for suspecting people in this game.

LG pretended to want to hear my defense.

If you have a real argument for yourself, scum will be hard pressed to turn that against you. Saying he wasn't really going to listen to your defense isn't a good reason not to give it. This is incredibly like Charter not wanting to answer my scale question last game. Not answering is far worse than giving an answer that scum could

try

to use against you.

Walnut, I understand post 218. What I'm saying is just knowing that doesn't really help us. If you're unsure about Netlava that's fine, you don't have to pick sides, but the way you bring that fact up over and over makes it seem like you don't want us to lynch Netlava, but you won't straight up say he's not scum. It makes you look very noncommittal.

Charter I haven't dropped suspicion of Walnut. I pointed out that I still find him scummy in 252. I think Netlava is far scummier. You said in 250 that you've been too biased in favor of Netlava this game and are going to reread intending to be more neutral. Did that happen? You don't mention Netlava in your recap of the game anywhere.

[Walnut]

Did a reread, here's my thoughts on what I saw.

Walnut in 63, massive derailing of town

Um... in post 63 I answered Shdowgirl's question about roles. I think that this was in fact a useful contribution to the town in general, and specifically as people had talked about two NKs meaning that there was a serial killer.

ShadowGirl wrote:

Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.
I meant to ask this earlier. Had, (or anyone who knows) what other 3rd party role is there besides SK? I know there can be multiple killing families, but that's highly unlikely here.

Listed on the wiki at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Roles . I would recommend the flash introduction to roles by mikeburnfire (linked from that page). It is really well done and easy to get an understanding from. Once you look at that you may rethink the comment about 3 scum or 2 scum and a SK...

Walnut in 79, MORE extra curricular role speculation

Answering questions about post 63.

Walnut 137, Defends himself against BB even though there is no need to.

I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.

Everything he says here is provocative, and I can't see how any of it is positive for the town, although some people seem to like the hint about the role. As my number 1 suspect is off today's menu, I would be ok with voting Blackberry if he doesn't get replaced first.

How is that defending myself? It seems to me to be completely attacking Blackberry.

No one listened to him since he even said he had no interest in playing.

How do I (or anyone else) know whether other people listened to him? I assume that everyone reads what is posted, but I don't know what effect it has on them. That is why, even though I am not sure anyone is impressed by your arguments here, I am obliged to defend myself against them.
Tinsley, for one, posted in response to him (see post #89).

Walnut in 137, Seems to think lynching BB is not only acceptable, but a good idea. Says that BB was deliberately trying to draw votes when pressure was building. Two things wrong with this. First I think that was BB's first or second post, so it being timed seems very unlikely to me. Second, he 'knows' BB was drawing votes away from someone else...

I was expecting me to claim that I have a kickass role to give me votes and only one person (charter) has voted me.

BB says that he expected to be voted for, which I picked up on. I concede that the drawing votes off Hadhfang theory was a bit unlikely.

145, wishy washy about BB after Netlava questions him.

As I said then, I was hoping that the reaction his initial posts had received would cause him to post more reasonably. Since that point he had not posted, so I could not guage whether this had happened.

Riot in 173, I don't understand why you seem to drop all suspicion of Walnut here and set your sights on Netlava. I don't find it scummy, but why did you drop Walnut?

In this post I am still in his top three suspects.

LG in 176, bandwagons, screams scum to me.

But I will vote for Walnut anyway...

Walnut in 187, defends me. Don't know why. Possible scenario is because he thinks I'll go and get myself lynched like I almost did last game, flip town, then he'll be in a good spot tomorrow.

Another (more likely) scenario, is that I did not see your post as that scummy, and as Farside had asked for any explanations of why it might not be scummy, I had given one.

Go ahead and string me up for this,

vote walnut

I won't on the basis of this post alone. While I not suprisingly don't agree with what you are saying here, I don't necessarily think you are scum either.

[Walnut]

Walnut.. are you saying Netlava is Unlynchable, then? That he always plays scummy.. and thus should never be lynched?

Walnut, I understand post 218. What I'm saying is just knowing that doesn't really help us. If you're unsure about Netlava that's fine, you don't have to pick sides, but the way you bring that fact up over and over makes it seem like you don't want us to lynch Netlava, but you won't straight up say he's not scum. It makes you look very noncommittal.

It helps, if it helps people sort out the content from the style in which it has been delivered. I think some of the posts on this page have shown that, in that people have articulated their arguments more clearly. In terms of my vote, I noted in #241 that I was leaning more towards voting Netlava. Not committed yet.

[charter]

Charter I haven't dropped suspicion of Walnut. I pointed out that I still find him scummy in 252. I think Netlava is far scummier. You said in 250 that you've been too biased in favor of Netlava this game and are going to reread intending to be more neutral. Did that happen? You don't mention Netlava in your recap of the game anywhere.

Ah, I thought that since the whole post you questioned Netlava. I see now that you didn't drop him, my apologies. I haven't done that reread yet, I doubt I can today, hopefully this weekend. I didn't mention Netlava, but I didnt mention a lot of others either.

@Walnut, regardless of what questions you were answering, your post got a few people off topic for a while. I'm not arguing that what you said was or wasn't justified, just that you did say it, and it did derail the town.

You're right about the 137 though, don't know where I got defend from. More like fruitlessly attacks. I assumed no one listened to him, since there were very few posts that talked about BB or what he said. Also noted, how you group Tinsley in there with responding to BB but no one else. Walnut, you really didn't defend yourself against my accusations. You corrected my improper use of words in a few cases, but you didn't try and refute much.

Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.