Open 83 - Polygamist Mafia (Game over!) before 628

[ZeekLTK]

Bah, I see, Nameless was a little quicker than me in bringing up the point about bussing.

But I'm glad someone else realizes it too.

[Adel]

And yeah, I saw your "reason" but that's not really a reason. - hence my comment. Was Chelsea lynched? No. So we don't know if there was distancing/bussing going on.

I find it alarming that you and Adel both keep trying to tell the town that scum will never bus each other in this game.

The fact that the stakes are so high (LyLo already) and townies are so cautious to vote near the end of wagons means it is highly likely that scum will (and probably have already) bus each other knowing that the wagon will be flimsy and easy to disband if it does get going.

I have said no such thing. In fact, I've abandoned my usual technique of using multipule wagons as a source of information during this day 2 because I do not expect it will yield useful information... especially since that was the exact technique we used to win in the previous run of this setup.

~~~

@Adel -

Sorry, after the last few pages Zeek no longer would be who I cleared at all. Lets let the OMGUS rein and I'll say, like I did in my crossing off, I would clear Chelsea since EVERY ONE ELSE was willing to vote for her.

As for your upcoming questions: I'd vote for either Zeek / Shy Guy.

no claiming out of order. I'm keeping your original "SpyreX -> clears -> ZeekLTK" because that is what you said at the time, and keeping the claims in the order they were recieved is important.

~~~

@ Adel - Now would be a good time to present your planned argument based on the question you asked the town. It's pretty clear we're not getting an answer from Chenshi anytime soon, and the original question was just to each pair rather than individual. Adding another question now seems a bit of a delaying tactic.

half of the point of the original list was to use the reverse order of the voluntary list of least suspected in order to get a claim order for "most suspicious". Scum will probably have claimed in the order that feels most comfortable for them, and this way they are forced to claim in an order that least suites thier playstyle and relationships with each other.

Once Chensi (or better yet, his replacement) posts a name for the "most likely to not be scum" list, I suggest that we use the list (in reverse order) and name the two couples we are willing to lynch.

this would be the order:

chenshi --> posts --> name of person he considers least likely to be scum
chenshi --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Adel --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Shy Guy --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Nameless --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Spyrex --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Harvey --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Firestarter --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
ZeekLTK --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
Chelseafan --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum
forbiddanlight --> posts --> name of two couples he considers msot likely to be scum

~~~

here is the current list: forbiddanlight -> clears -> Spyrex
Chelseafan -> clears -> Firestarter
ZeekLTK -> clears -> Firestarter
Firestarter -> clears -> Spyrex
Harvey -> clears -> Spyrex
Spyrex -> clears -> ZeekLTK
Nameless -> clears -> Spyrex
Shy Guy -> clears -> Harvey
Adel -> clears -> Chelseafan

please point out any mistake I may have made soonest.

rather than a delaying tactic, this is an essential step in the data collection process.

~~~

Second set of crossouts: The fact that early on every group was willing to vote for chelsea (one member, for this, I am including as two) makes me logically think they are town.

I've said this before but this is BAD LOGIC because the mafia are still going to carefully bus and lie regarding their intent, so unless somebody is actually involved in a lynch we can not be particularly certain they were willing to do so at all.

I agree. Because I have no faith in that process to work in this game (because the scum had a chance to read the first run of this game), I developed a different process to use in this game. That process did work in the first run of this game, partly because we had multipule wagons on day one, and also because some members of the scum team didn't see it comming. The fact that the scum have not been able to communicate since the game started means that we have a chance of forcing information out of them and use it to trap them so long as they don't know exactly how we are going to use the information.
~~~

I will admit the "anyone but us" comment was rather selfish, and I shouldn't dismiss chen on a meta read. But, personally, I think that that lead will be the one that's most iffy given that meta. In other games where 1 didn't kill all, I'd be all for a chen lynch (I wouldn't let him live to lylo). However, since one takes them all out, I think pursuing one of the other scum possibilities is safer. Just my opinion.

which is a great case for replacing him. He isn't participating, he should go.

~~~

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

to a reread it probably does. At the time it seemed pretty hopeless to try to continue it. If you had replaced into a day 2 where Gimbo was still alive and chelsea-town had been lynched, wouldn't it look like I had saved my scum-buddy Gimbo from a lynch? Would a Chelsea-town lynch really have given us a day 2 with a cleared Gimbo?

~~~

2.) Zeek's attacks on Adel have been thin (see his lastest post) and have parroted other objections. Not to mention even in his Day 1 posts like I said before he starts painting a case to push today on us.

What do other people think of Zeek's attacks on me? Thin or substancial?

~~~
It would be pretty cool if other people joined me is asking "

Mod: please replace chenshi for breaking your stated rules by remaining inactive

"

Why aren't other people joining me?

[Adel]

EBWOP:

Second set of crossouts: The fact that early on every group was willing to vote for chelsea (one member, for this, I am including as two) makes me logically think they are town.

I've said this before but this is BAD LOGIC because the mafia are still going to carefully bus and lie regarding their intent, so unless somebody is actually involved in a lynch we can not be particularly certain they were willing to do so at all.

I agree. Because I have no faith in that process to work in this game (because the scum had a chance to read the first run of this game), I developed a different process to use in this game. That process did work in the first run of this game, partly because we had multipule wagons on day one, and also because some members of the scum team didn't see it comming. The fact that the scum have not been able to communicate since the game started means that we have a chance of forcing information out of them and use it to trap them so long as they don't know exactly how we are going to use the information.

[chenhsi]

Because I'm not remaining inactive?

[chenhsi]

Not too much, anyway.

[Adel]

seriously dude, start reading the game and start posting. You are creating a serious "no fun zone" with this stunt, like the player that takes an hour to make a move in Spades, Risk or social Chess.

[Adel]

could you at least tell us who you think is the least likely to be scum, and which two players (not from a signle pair) you think are the most likely to be scum?

[eldarad]

Vote Count

Chelseafan (1) -

Harvey Pew

Firestarter (1) -

Adel

Adel (1) -

ZeekLTK

ZeekLTK (1) -

SpyreX

Not voting (6) -

Firestarter, Shy Guy, Chelseafan, Nameless, forbiddanlight, chenhsi

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch

@Mod: Please replace Chenshi

You have a rule requiring players to be active, and he is not following it.

I don't replace players at the request of other players. Players who fail to meet the posting requirements will be prodded and/or replaced as necessary.

[Adel]

what are the posting requirements? >one barely game related line a week?

[Shy Guy]

@ Shy Guy - I "like" how you've started backpeddling regarding MafiaSSK from "solid tells" and "these words sell me" to "I feel pretty weak about that" when challenged.

They are solid tells, but they do not account for any of Z's play, which has largely been no significant tells one way or the other from me. MafiaSSK looked really town, and I am sure he looked really town, but is he, considering everything his replacement did? This I am more unsure about.

I am doing no more backpedaling than I said when I introduced the idea, wherein if you disagree with my analysis of MafiaSSK, that's fine, put it to the side and look at the rest of what I am saying. I have absolutely no desire to talk about MafiaSSK because as far as I can see only Spryex is thinking that group is a legitimate lynch target. If I'm wrong about this we can discuss MafiaSSk further, but I'd rather discuss Adel and chenhsi.

[Shy Guy]

~~~

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered.

Adel, I thought that you'd agreed to vote with Spryex, and once he voted you voted. Why are you now calling this decision impulsive and triggered by his vote, rather than the discussion preceding it? It seems you are offering a different explanation for this action than you did back then, and indeed a different explanation for this action than your lover offered a few posts ago.

My lover has no way of knowing what is going on in my head. It was impulsive for me to go along with his vote

Adel, I'm wondering -- where exactly did you say you would vote with your partner, if you did say this? Spryex introduced the idea that you did this, and I'm not finding it. Was he just confused? Did I misinterpret him somewhere?

I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

I decided that if a Chlsea-town lynch would leave Gimbo 80% cleared, then a Gimbo lynch would leave Chlsea at least 60% cleared.

Did you say this anywhere day one? Did you say this anywhere before now?

Not that I recall, after day 1, I moped around for a couple pages, and thought of a way to go forward.

It seems, then, you are providing ex post facto justification for your actions, and justification that conflicts with your description that the action was just "impulsive" and indeed the incorrect action.

When I'm scum I am not plauged with self-doubt. In longer games I am able to take a longer view, and know that things should average out as the result of good play. I knew that if Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town, then I would bear pretty much full responsibility for losing the game.

Were Gimbo town and Chelsea scum, would you not have had pretty much full responsibility for winning it? By going along with the crowd, if Chelsea is scum, aren't you assuming pretty much full responsibility for losing the game if we lose it because you stifled what you knew to be the only voice of reason -- your own?

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

to a reread it probably does. At the time it seemed pretty hopeless to try to continue it. If you had replaced into a day 2 where Gimbo was still alive and chelsea-town had been lynched, wouldn't it look like I had saved my scum-buddy Gimbo from a lynch? Would a Chelsea-town lynch really have given us a day 2 with a cleared Gimbo?

How is this relevant? Does it matter how convinced I would have been? What seems to matter is that

you

believed that a Chelsea town-lynch would have cleared Gimbo, and proceeded to lynch Gimbo anyways.

I find it alarming that you and Adel both keep trying to tell the town that scum will never bus each other in this game.

I have said no such thing.

Adel, then, may I ask what rationale are you using to clear Chelseafan and chenhsi?

I like ZeekLTK's points about Spryex; they mirror my own. He seems to have turned on ZeekLTK and myself because we are attacking his partner and ergo him. I am becoming increasingly convinced that I am really onto something about Adel and Spryex.

[Harvey Pew]

Spryex... seems to have turned on ZeekLTK and myself because we are attacking his partner and ergo him.

Well, of course. To defend your partner is to defend yourself. It would be much odd if Spyrex

didn't

do this.

[ZeekLTK]

Harvey there is a difference between defending yourself and attacking someone just because they are attacking you.

SpyreX listed me as "most town" when I had forbidden as my main suspect, but now that Adel is my main suspect suddenly SpyreX says I am "most suspicious". Really?

[Adel]

~~~

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered.

Adel, I thought that you'd agreed to vote with Spryex, and once he voted you voted. Why are you now calling this decision impulsive and triggered by his vote, rather than the discussion preceding it? It seems you are offering a different explanation for this action than you did back then, and indeed a different explanation for this action than your lover offered a few posts ago.

My lover has no way of knowing what is going on in my head. It was impulsive for me to go along with his vote

Adel, I'm wondering -- where exactly did you say you would vote with your partner, if you did say this? Spryex introduced the idea that you did this, and I'm not finding it. Was he just confused? Did I misinterpret him somewhere?

-I don't remember saying anything to that effect.
-possibly
- probably not, since you are digging through our post record and we are typing off of memory (I think he is, I know I am)

I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

I decided that if a Chlsea-town lynch would leave Gimbo 80% cleared, then a Gimbo lynch would leave Chlsea at least 60% cleared.

Did you say this anywhere day one? Did you say this anywhere before now?

Not that I recall, after day 1, I moped around for a couple pages, and thought of a way to go forward.

It seems, then, you are providing ex post facto justification for your actions, and justification that conflicts with your description that the action was just "impulsive" and indeed the incorrect action.

I actually have a pretty sad habit of getting frustrated and doing impulsive stuff as town. I get really pissed at players in this game from time to time in this game a sometimes cope by and killing them

When I'm scum I am not plauged with self-doubt. In longer games I am able to take a longer view, and know that things should average out as the result of good play. I knew that if Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town, then I would bear pretty much full responsibility for losing the game.

Were Gimbo town and Chelsea scum, would you not have had pretty much full responsibility for winning it? By going along with the crowd, if Chelsea is scum, aren't you assuming pretty much full responsibility for losing the game if we lose it because you stifled what you knew to be the only voice of reason -- your own?

I wish you had replaced in day 1.

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

to a reread it probably does. At the time it seemed pretty hopeless to try to continue it. If you had replaced into a day 2 where Gimbo was still alive and chelsea-town had been lynched, wouldn't it look like I had saved my scum-buddy Gimbo from a lynch? Would a Chelsea-town lynch really have given us a day 2 with a cleared Gimbo?

How is this relevant? Does it matter how convinced I would have been? What seems to matter is that

you

believed that a Chelsea town-lynch would have cleared Gimbo, and proceeded to lynch Gimbo anyways.

Yes I did. Those points are relevant because they were some of the doubts I was grappling with. I can usually convince myself that anyone is scum in a game, and I can usually be counted on to talk myself out of knowing that someone who is scum is scum.

I find it alarming that you and Adel both keep trying to tell the town that scum will never bus each other in this game.

I have said no such thing.

Adel, then, may I ask what rationale are you using to clear Chelseafan and chenhsi?[/quote]
Gimbo was town. Nobody on the Gimbo wagon showed any interest in my idea to clear Gimbo, nobody went out of their way to attack my idea to clear Gimbo by lynching Chlesea. I have more significant doubts about everyone else.

I like ZeekLTK's points about Spryex; they mirror my own. He seems to have turned on ZeekLTK and myself because we are attacking his partner and ergo him. I am becoming increasingly convinced that I am really onto something about Adel and Spryex.

Speaking from personal experience, whenever I spend that many words attacking someone I always end up utterly convinced that they are scum. Are you finding what you are looking for because you are trying so hard to find it?

[Adel]

2.) Zeek's attacks on Adel have been thin (see his lastest post) and have parroted other objections. Not to mention even in his Day 1 posts like I said before he starts painting a case to push today on us.

What do other people think of Zeek's attacks on me? Thin or substantial?

[Chelseafan]

Have managed to steal my brothers computer shall do a re-read and post my thoughts tonight hopefully.

[SpyreX]

I'm back, after takin some time away.

A few things. As for the whole me and Adel with the hammer. Adel's post 32:

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

Thats why I thought Adel was going to hammer with me. Now, after I said I was dropping my vote, I assumed it was going to be both of us, and it was.

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

Was I opposed to it, or are you talking about the fact I hadn't really seen it as my being opposed?

I've said this before but this is BAD LOGIC because the mafia are still going to carefully bus and lie regarding their intent, so unless somebody is actually involved in a lynch we can not be particularly certain they were willing to do so at all.

That's fine - I gave my simple thought process. That's all. I thought the rapid succession was off and I noted it as such. So, they are currently off my list, but I dont expect anyone else to. (As I said to forbidden, thats why I was surprised she made reference to the other part when I said it).

@Zeek

Good lord. You want to know why I changed my opinion on you.

Early on Day 2 you made very calm statments. 406-407 for example. Your suspicions of us, even there, didn't really bother me (in the sense of making you seem scummy).

Then, I say I think you're the most town because, at this point, it really seems like you're trying to do what you can and you're open to avenues.

Then you ask Adel why she hasn't provided a name, which is fine.

THEN, you extrapolate this to be us figuring out someone to mislynch before the information is even there. This is where I start to get bothered some by your play.

Then, Firestarter starts pushing with your case about validity...

From this point on, I dont think I've seen you mention anything but Adel and you have been attacking AND the cases are weak.

Post 450: You say this is some scheme copied from her 540 game. That we're going to look at the list of nonsuspects and, from it, pull a name and two "idiot townies" are going to along to us. You then start attacking her play all game with lots of sarcasm quotes.

My reply to some of your questions in 450, as far as I can tell, were just ignored totally.

Your next post, 482: I almost gave this exact example (yet you didn't) and you're saying the case on lynching Chelsea day 1 was crap (I dont think it was a case as much as a logic exposition)

Right after, you vote for her because she's pissed that Chenshi is M.I.A to help us mislynch?

Shy Guy then posts putting suspicion on us.

You, not long after, come out more agressive (497). Again, you extrapolate a situation where you've pre-assumed we are scum and what we would do. This includes saying we have never said why mass claim (out of the gate) was a bad idea (P.S. I said why it would make sense not to more than once).

You then in the next post say that lynching Chlesea would not be certain to clear Gimbo, but willfully leave of the latter half (near-certainty) which is the whole idea. You then toss in that Adel wants to lynch Gimbo because he'd be awfully sure Gimbo was town with a little hmm.

When you next chime in, you're now certain because I crossed them off for "no reason" - disagreeing with why I personally cross them off isn't no reason. You then push ANOTHER odd claim from Adel and again ignore my questions about it.

Then, 549 (we're getting to present) you make another statement about my intentions followed up as an expose' into my thought process which, of course, is wrong and, again, is built around the assumption I am scum.

So, you want to know why I changed my vote? Why, even though with my questions about Shy Guy's play I chose you?

1.) You started out fairly open before I said I cleared you.
2.) EACH TIME someone else came in with something to say about us you started pushing more agressive and single-minded.
3.) Your "ideas" about our thought-process are built in entirety around us being scum. You are going from that and building what is, to me, a very weak case because you're pushing us to be scum.
4.) You have ignored any question posed to you about some of the things you've said by me AND, as far as I can tell, ignored any explanation given.
5.) You started out thinking it might be forbidden/shy but dropped that immediately once others posted doubts.
6.) Each attack has been more vehenement, more extrapolated and more single-minded than the last.

There is no reason for a towny to be this focused in lylo. There is every reason for scum to bus when they see others bringing up concerns to try and fuel those flames.

So, no, I dont care that you changed who you were suspicious of. I care about the methods and the timing of all of your attacks on Adel.

Hope that clears it up for ya.

[Adel]

I'm back, after takin some time away.

A few things. As for the whole me and Adel with the hammer. Adel's post 32:

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

Thats why I thought Adel was going to hammer with me. Now, after I said I was dropping my vote, I assumed it was going to be both of us, and it was.

I'd totally forgotten about that.

[Firestarter]

Apologies to all after I said I would have some thoughts on this game posted yesterday, I simply didn't have the time to commit to a real reread, its something I need to do before my next post of substance.

My aim is to have this posted by tomorrow evening, but it could flow into the next day.

[SpyreX]

God, I'm about to get all feelings up in.

Out of everything I just said, only my partner chimes in with anything and thats on a bit of it? Lordy be, should I just start lurking for pete's sake.

[Shy Guy]

It seems to me very likely that Adel is scum for two reasons.
Firstly, now, when she is questioned about her hammering Gimbo she claims that it was an impulsive action, wherein closer examination shows it was not, e.g. she is lying.
Secondly, looking more closely at posts 233 - the end of the day, it seems Adel brought up the whole bit about Chelseafan that she believed in, yet stuck to her agreement to lynch Gimbo anyways.

Lying about being impulsive

I asked about Adel's inconsistency between word and deed in 515.

Like I said, Adel's actions to me look like her ending up saying "I'm going to ignore my plan to clear a townie, and instead hammer that townie." How is that not suspicious?

Adel replies in 526

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered. I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

However, in post 233, Adel wrote

timestamp: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:52 pm

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

And then hammered with her partner in post

timestamp: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:35 am

'k

vote:Gimbo

Just about 48 hours after she promised her partner that she would hammer. It seems, then, that her hammer was not impulsive at all as she had claimed, but rather a deliberate plan with her partner.

Adel was not being impulsive; she was going to a plan she'd set out. In short, it appears that Adel has lied now about her motivations for the hammer (perchance in order to deflect suspicion from it), forgetting now that she had hammered as part of an agreement with her partner.

The whole Chelseafan case: A fabrication to look like Adel is trying hard to scum hunt

Again, this revolves around Adel's promise to hammer in thread. Let's look at post 233 again

timestamp: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:52 pm

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

What is noteworthy is that this post comes before Adel ever mentions Chelseafan, BUT after she has asked Chelseafan about whether he is willing to vote for Gimbo. According to Adel, it has crossed her mind that if all the groups are willing to vote Gimbo, then Gimbo might be town. But, she does not wait on the response from Chelseafan before promising her partner that she will hammer Gimbo.

Chelsefan responds in 255, and Adel makes a great show of arguing that Chelseafan town implies Gimbo town, and says it very explicitly in

I see your point.

unvote, vote:Chelseafan

I can see Chelseafan being scum without Ginbo being scum, but I can't see Gimbo being scum without Chelseafan also being scum.

that the correct lynch is Chelseafan. She says again in 297

I find it even more interesting that so many people unvoted Gimbo so quickly. If they were willing to lynch Gimbo they should be just as willing to lynch Chelseafan. The is a chance of Chelseafan being scum with Gimbo being town, but there is no chance of Gimbo being scum if Chelseafan is scum.

Obv, if Chelseafan is town then Gimbo is town. By lynching Chelseafan we either win or walk into Day 2 with one lover couple being confirmed as town.

that Chelseafan is obviously a superior lynch to Gimbo, and is confused as to why people unvoted Gimbo and didn't vote Chelseafan.

However, when one person, forbiddanlight, re-votes Gimbo, and her partner makes one post arguing against her plan of lynching Chelseafan, Adel hammers instantly. She does not respond to her partner's arguments. She does not try and persuade others that Chelseafan is the right lynch. She instead goes with the pact she made with her partner earlier -- that they would hammer Gimbo together in 48 hours -- a pact made BEFORE she even brought up the idea of Chelseafan! It seems that the whole bit with Chelseafan was of no importance to Adel other than to appear like she is scum hunting, and really had little preference as to who was lynched, Chelseafan or Gimbo.

This has led me to believe that perhaps I was incorrect, and Adel & Spryex are not paired with C&C. In any case though, this whole case on Chelseafan by Adel seems to have been a charade, abandoned by Adel as soon as the 48 hour clock struck.

---

In sum, Adel, how can I take you to be doing anything but lying about your hammer on Gimbo? How was it impulsive when you promised to do it 48 hours before?

Also, how can I take your case on Chelseafan as serious scum hunting when you abandon it so easily to vote Gimbo with your partner -- a vote that you had

already promised

before you even introduced the case on Chelseafan?

The ONLY thing I can see in Adel's defense here is that Spryex himself dug up quote I couldn't find that is so incriminating against Adel, an action I am finding hard to understand. I can't see scum's motivation for providing that quote. I don't think he would have unless he thought it would help in his defense, help me understand everything, find their true alignment, etc. However, he may have not seen the implications of that promise by Adel in terms of her now having seemed very much to have lied, and I was accusing him of being unclear and/or fabricating a quote, so maybe he just didn't see the effect on the appearance of Adel and provided the quote to look town-like. He also may have reasoned I'd have looked carefully and found it eventually, and that by providing it himself it would look better.

In any event, I welcome a response by Adel, and any questions, comments, and insights about this from everyone.

I'd again especially like the view of my partner, since I can trust that her judgment, while it may not always be correct, is always influenced by an attempt to find scum.

[Shy Guy]

I always appreciate it when others respond to direct questions I ask of them, so I'll respond to all the ones I see, here:

Speaking from personal experience, whenever I spend that many words attacking someone I always end up utterly convinced that they are scum. Are you finding what you are looking for because you are trying so hard to find it?

I have not found this trend in my scum hunting behavior. If introduced with new evidence or arguments, I can be very quick to change my mind about someone. Perhaps my first game here, Methodical Mafia 2, is a good example of this. I seem to recall changing my opinions quickly near the end of the game... sadly to my detriment, as just enough townies thought the vote switching was suspicious and thought I was scum to get me lynched out of endgame, for a just-barely town loss.

As for your direct question... I'd hope that increasing my efforts to find evidence would aid me in finding it. But I do believe that I come at scum hunting from an objective perspective as possible the vast majority of the time.

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

Was I opposed to it, or are you talking about the fact I hadn't really seen it as my being opposed?

What I was trying to say is this:

Adel said she recalled strong opposition the the plan of lynching Chelseafan as opposed to Gimbo. I responded that I didn't really remember any such strong opposition. I remembered many posts were skeptical, and many were made saying how suspicious Gimbo was. However, only one or two that seemed to attack strongly and directly the plan of lynching Chelseafan -- and that the strongest of these came from you, her partner.

[forbiddanlight]

Well, to be honest, I think Adel honestly forgot she said anything about hammering Gimbo in 48 hours, and that her hammer close to that time was more in sync with SpyreX's. I however, do agree with most of your other points against Adel.

[Nameless]

... Then again, Adel hasn't exactly struck me as the kind of person to forget something as notable as that. But either way it's not something you should really be using as the basis of a case against someone, especially after that pair has brought it up and given an explanation. So that kind of makes me wary of Shy Guy.

...

Is anybody thinking of a Shy Guy / forbiddanlight / ZeekLTK / Harvey Pew scum group right now? Because considering how hard they're pushing fairly weak cases, I know I am.

[SpyreX]

^ Hi Nameless, how you doin. Maybe thats what I've said after the turn of events, myself.

However, only one or two that seemed to attack strongly and directly the plan of lynching Chelseafan -- and that the strongest of these came from you, her partner.

Are you talking about when I said:

Personally, despite my partners train of thought, I want to see Gimbo lynched today. I think, as I've said over and over, this plan has far too much scum benefit for me to think otherwise. Furthermore, the playstyle and feel has not led me to believe this is town in any way.

Was that my strong opposition?