Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Farkshinsoup]

So I'll drop the hammer later today, I'm just waiting for Thesp to check back in. I had some questions for him, so did Macavenger, haven't heard anything to make me change my mind.

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Netlava 5 (CF Riot, Lord Gurgi, Battousai, Walnut, camn)

Walnut 4 (charter, Macavenger, Netlava, Tinsley)
charter 1 (Farkshinsoup)
CF Riot 1 (Thesp)
Battousai 1 (ShadowGirl)

Not Voting:

12 alive = 7 to lynch!

Note to the replacements, please unvote before you vote!

[Farkshinsoup]

unvote

Mod, I think that thesp has a vote on Netlava.

[Lord Gurgi]

He technically didn't unvote, I'm not sure if Mizzy requires unvotes for replacements.

[Mizzy]

unvote

Mod, I think that thesp has a vote on Netlava.

He did not unvote so his vote doesn't count.

[Farkshinsoup]

vote: netlava

I'll leave it to thesp to hammer, then.

[CF Riot]

So I miss a couple days of computer time and all hell breaks loose. That's nice. But I'm caught up now. 4 pages went by since my last post but a lot of what was said got cleared up between the people in the conversation so this post shouldn't be too long. Things that caught my eye:

Farside asked about my stat in 332, but I've already answered and she's been replaced. If anyone wants to ask again, I suppose I'll answer again.

Netlava misses my point AGAIN in 334. I don't think being tunnel visioned is a scum tell. I never, ever said that. I said I think you are scum because you were pushing my lynch way too hard for the amount evidence you had. I said the only excuse for this if you were town with tunnel vision, but I highly doubt this.

Charter's cases against Walnut have been the first in the game by him to give me a town read. I still don't see him as town yet, because I think his bad outweighs his good and I might be biased since I suspect Walnut too. Still, between him and Mac, I'm almost as sure of my suspicion of Walnut as Netlava now.

Camn, as much as I want Netlava out of here, your vote should be on the person you suspect most, not the person you find easiest to lynch. That's a very scum thing to do as you're basically saying "The case on X is strong enough, I should be able to vote him without looking suspicious."

I like Battousai.

Netlava, Tinsley & farside22 are scum.

My apologies to the rest of you for ruining this game by discovering the scum already, I'm sure you would have had loads of fun figuring it out for yourselves while they picked you off one by one.

This made me lol. Question, when you say you "like" Batt do you mean "like as scum" or "like as town"?

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

This is funny really. Walnut is accused of only defending himself and not really scum hunting. So he defends why he is defending himself, and doesn't put any scum hunting in his post.

Charter one thing in 409 is bad. It's okay to be confident in your vote but to tell someone there's no point in defending themselves is wrong. This could be okay for a role based confirmation, like cop investigation or tracking someone etc., but not just because you refuse to change your mind.

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

QFT. I think we are lynching him now though.

----

Charter's connection to Netlava still seems blatantly obvious. He posts a few recaps of what Netlava did today and says "I don't like this" to a few of them, but ultimately comes up saying he's still town.

I'm not following the suspicion on Battousai. The intentional lurking thing was the worst thing he's done all day, but I said a few pages back that I don't see how he could gain anything from it as scum, especially by admitting he did it. The "it was a random vote" thing still bothers me though. I don't buy that excuse.

Still, no new evidence to change my current LoS.

Confirm Vote: Netlava

[charter]

Charter one thing in 409 is bad. It's okay to be confident in your vote but to tell someone there's no point in defending themselves is wrong. This could be okay for a role based confirmation, like cop investigation or tracking someone etc., but not just because you refuse to change your mind.

My point was that Walnut was defending himself when I wasn't asking him questions or accusing him. It came out bad.

[ShadowGirl]

By my count, I believe Netlava just got lynched.

[Lord Gurgi]

That was a confirm vote. Not a new vote, he's at L-1 and we're waiting for Thesp to hammer.

[ShadowGirl]

Oh, my bad. I read that as just a vote.

[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.

[Farkshinsoup]

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.

Come off it, I don't buy the whole "poor me" attitude of this post. There is a very good reason why suggesting the lynch of the cop is a scum tell. Whether you believe his claim or not, you move on to find the other scum, because if he is telling the truth, you don't waste a lynch on him.

You have every right to be a "free thinker", and I have every right to think that you are lying scum who's trying to get a possible cop lynched.

[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.

[Macavenger]

I'll be in Houston/Galveston beginning Thursday afternoon, returning Sunday late evening.

We may not be hearing from Thesp for a bit. Barring massive objections, I'll give him 24 hours or so to make an appearance and then drop a hammer.

[Walnut]

Because Netlava is so close to a lynch:

Vote: Walnut

That is a truly weird reason for voting.

Charter, you continue to set up these nonsensical situations where you decide my play is scummy either way. For example:

1) You say something to accuse me, and vote for me.
2) I defend the accusation.
3) You say something that disagrees with my defense, and continue to vote for me.
4) According to what you just said, at this point I am supposed to stop defending myself.

As your last post is phrased as statements rather than questions, is it therefore to be ignored? Then people will suspect me for not answering, and any vaguely plausible sounding accusations will be taken as gospel.

You don't need to defend yourself anymore, I'm already convinced you need to be lynched.

This is just plain illogical. We are talking in a public forum, and the idea is that everyone reads what is written by every player. You don't determine who the scum are based on a one to one conversation with someone else, you use all the evidence in front of you. And tomorrow will be another day, with the night's results to provide more evidence. Seeing people are assuring me that I will get to speak on Day 2, I am looking forward to it

[Farkshinsoup]

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)

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 don't believe you. There were other issues being discussed at the time, specifically BB's semi-role claim.

Had's roleclaim certainly seemed suspicious. He wasn't very believable. I think you were trying to capitalize on that and the fact that he had an unknown sanity to see if you couldn't get him lynched.

[charter]

Walnut, you continue to not scumhunt and just defend yourself. I'm not going to further discuss this with you because it will only prolong the scumhunting more.

I explained about the "don't need to defend yourself" bit. I misworded it horribly. This is a better way of wording it "You don't need to continue defending yourself against statements, not arguments, I'm making. I'm already convinced you need lynched."

For the record, I still think a Walnut lynch is the way to go today.

[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