Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Walnut]

Walnut - You just used your own quotes to prove Riot and myself right. Look at your quotes in 463, 501, 522, and 544. You never questioned Thesp on his investigation while some of us found it scummy. You never provided your thoughts on it until later when I asked. If Thesp was your number one suspect, why did you wait so long to provide your thoughts on his investigation?

I still havn't questioned Thesp on his investigation because there was no question to ask. I was already confident on him (being my number one suspect from Day 1) and then he did something which raised his suspicion level with everyone. There was no point in me saying anything about it, especially as the consensus was still not to lynch him today. Charter, on the other hand, chose that moment to go off the rails, and there was much more value in pointing that out.

I want to ask everyone not voting walnut or LG why you aren't voting for one of them?

Because I find you more scummy, and you are still not answering the question I repeated in 638.

You said it was bad for town to vote someone they don't find scummy, you just did that.

Farkshinsoup doesn't say that he doesn't find you scummy; he implies that he does through his comments about you lurking. Saying it is a vote for pressure does not mean that he does not see you as scum.

[charter]

As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?

Are you sure that's directed at me? I don't think I said I was going to do a reread today. Also, I know for a fact I never said he was very scummy. I don't even understand that last question.

quote="Lord Gurgi"]

I'm also expecting a vote from charter on his next post.

WHOA. I honestly did not see this until after I voted.

Are you admitting to not reading my post?[/quote]
Seriously? I read it.

[Lord Gurgi]

I'm also expecting a vote from charter on his next post.

WHOA. I honestly did not see this until after I voted.

Are you admitting to not reading my post?

Seriously? I read it.

I mean that you voted without reading that, which makes me doubt your credibility.

[charter]

LG, I'd suggest using other stuff I said to build a case against me. That's not going to fly. All your question was was a desperate last ditch effort to try and make me seem like I don't know what I'm talking about. I think I'm about to post a coherent case against you.

Obviously I read your post, as I commented on it. I didn't read it before I voted you however, I saw Fark's post and I got all excited. I actually had a big speech questioning Fark, but decided I'd just take the vote for you and not care about his justification. Fark's vote is horrible, but I will deal with that later (after you are lynched).

[Tinsley]

I actually had a big speech questioning Fark, but decided I'd just take the vote for you and not care about his justification. Fark's vote is horrible, but I will deal with that later (after you are lynched).

I'd still like to see that speech. Charter - with the recent developments between LG and Fark, do you still think they are both scum? I think this is more proof that Fark is trying to get any lynch besides Walnut, but it's making me wonder whether or not LG is scum.

[charter]

I actually had a big speech questioning Fark, but decided I'd just take the vote for you and not care about his justification. Fark's vote is horrible, but I will deal with that later (after you are lynched).

I'd still like to see that speech. Charter - with the recent developments between LG and Fark, do you still think they are both scum? I think this is more proof that Fark is trying to get any lynch besides Walnut, but it's making me wonder whether or not LG is scum.

I deleted it, but it was mostly questioning why he waited until I make my statement (which I didn't back up at all) to vote LG. I doubt he read my reasons from yesterday for suspecting LG because he needed me to repeat them for walnut. Like I said, I have no interest in questioning Fark about this until after LG is lynched. I think at least two of LG/Fark/Walnut are scum.

I'm about to go back and reread LG and put up a case against him.

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Farkshinsoup 3 (Thesp, Tinsley, Lord Gurgi)
Walnut 2 (Macavenger, CF Riot)
Lord Gurgi 2 (Farkshinsoup, charter)
charter 1 (Walnut)

Not Voting:

ShadowGirl, camn

10 Alive = 6 to lynch!

[charter]

LG reread.

33, throws out the SK speculation
69, asks farside why bringing up the SK is bad, this has already been answered quite well by Mac
140, basically just lets us know he's alive

174

, sets himself up for voting Netlava

175

, Netlava is exactly right. Everything in the entire post is golden.

176

, votes Netlava with terrible reasoning.
188, no point of this other to just remind people that Netlava did something that can be considered fishy
212, Netlava is right again, by this time Mac has taken over lynching Netlava duties, convienently leaving LG's hands virtually clean
215, LG defends himself some more
221, THAT'S wishy washy camn...
258, by Netlava

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.

I want to hear

LG's

response to this since you never responded yesterday.
265, I addressed this in my post 266
277, finally answers why he brought up the SK, when it's obvious Netlava has attracted all attention from the rest of the town
278,

Mac

, you say you think LG is probably town, do you still feel this way? Why or why not?
317, his first useful content filled post. However, is there any content in there? He lists suspicions about everyone, and very little is original. However, something is worth noting, the only thing he says about farside is that she completely ignored the apple discussion. This leads me to believe two things, Fark and LG are not scum together. This leads to some interesting questions, such as why was Fark so hesitant to vote Walnut today?
384, camn has both her scum candidates wrong...
399, another good post by Netlava
419, LG defends Thesp, has been buddying up to him in a post preiously as well
421, lol
434, anxious to lynch a townie

448

, this is worth looking into
451, STILL anxious to pull off the lynch before something can happen
497, blatent directing unfounded suspicion at me and still clings to his poor reasoning
535, votes me and gives no new reason, why didn't he do this in his first post of D2? Oh, I had no one voting me at the time so he couldn't latch on to someone else's case.
577, I addressed this in my 579
634, "Unvote charter cause everyone else is so I need to blend in, but I'm still just as suspicous of charter and will revote him in a heartbeat if he gets votes again."
642, gross overreaction to suspicion of him. This happened once before when I said a mere "screams scum" to one of his posts. Also, since I've said I'm 99% sure he's scum, his daily posting has basically tripled.

In short, LG latches on to other's arguments and does nothing to further wagons. His play is very opportunistic. Does zero scumhunting. His posts do nothing but cast unfounded suspicion on whoever is the leading vote holder at the time.

Honestly, I can see Thesp as being scum now, unless he actually gives reasons for suspecting who he does, I can't see any reason for him not to suspect LG while suspecting the others for the same reasons which makes me think they could be buddies.

I don't see my vote changing off of LG. I will clarify/elaborate if someone does not understand something I am saying. If I was LG's scumbuddy, now is when I'd start bussing him...

[Macavenger]

Mac

, you say you think LG is probably town, do you still feel this way? Why or why not?

No. I indicated in 647 I don't mind the hate on him right now. I see a good chance he's a Walnut buddy based on the charter wagon and his reaction to the fark vote.

I think the main reason I thought he was town Day 1 was actually because Netlava was making most of the arguments for why he was scum, and Netlava is so bad at constructing reasonable arguments I just assumed the opposite or something.

[camn]

OK, look... don't take this as oppositional.. it is simply a counterpoint.
I like it when we ar all talking about the same thing... so I went and looked at all those posts.

My thoughts:

33, Does throw out SK suspicion.. but... I see it as totally in response to the "is there 3 mafia" speculation.. which was opened up by charter and Riot
69, true... why is Farside's opinion relevant at that point?
140, charter has some deep seated OMGUS tendencies, I think.
174, True
175, a little over the top...
176, and a simple OMGUS from LG, IMO, but certainly with poor reasoning.
188, does there need to be a different point?
212, I thought you like Mac as town?
215, that he does.. but granted, Ntlava was all over him.
221, I tend to agree. People should just admit it when they are omgus-ing.
258, i leave this to LG

265, true, you admit to tunnel vision. I kind of approve! We all are imperfect.. I like it when someone admits it!
277, but it is an accepatble response, IMO.. and an answer to a direct question.
278, Mac, you say you think LG is probably town, do you still feel this way? Why or why not? <<ditto
317, i think this is a good post.
384, a lot of people are wrong on D1 IMO, charter including this is just more passive/agressive omgusing. Thanks for that.
399, another good post by Netlava
419, I like commentary on 'playstlye' It helps me.
421, I dont see the humor.
434, I don't see that at all.. with all the Unvote-rules violations.. we needed some clarity. LG was being Loistically helpful, again.
448, this IS worth looking into. .
451, maybe he is anxious...............
497, you re just mad cuz he brings you up again
535, totally agree. Why didn't that vote come earlier? Like.. post 497?
577, true...
634, Agree here, too. A reason would be nice.
642, now IS the time to find your scum and stick to it. Why is the vote on Fark and not Charter, then?

[Lord Gurgi]

Requested post. So help me, if anyone uses the 'YOU WOULD SAY THAT SCUM' logic on me again I will explode.

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.

-My problem with this entire post is that it asks no questions that I can answer, it is filled with anger, and if I do respond in any way, he, and you charter, use the 'YOU WOULD SAY THAT SCUM' logic. At this point I am officially giving up on deterring charter and just hoping to convince everyone else.
-When I said 'I really want Netlava to defend himself' it was in order to stop a fastwagon like the one that happened to Hadhfang before he could defend himself.
-I have NOT read the other thread, nor do I intend to, however I think that many people (particularly scum) are accusing the same people as last time to make it easier to build a case.
-Yes I did vote for him and he never gave

any decent explanation

he just accused me of being some great mastermind somehow controlling the entire town in bandwagonning him.

Question: Can someone explain why I am being strung up for the Netlava wagon alone?

Note: The reason I am posting again is that there was nothing for me to talk about, all that was happening was a few people complaining about Walnut not being lynched today.

-------------------------

Charter's reread (Gross mischaracterizations)

33 - In response to your scum speculation.
69 - I wanted an explanation from the person

who said it first

140 - ....
174 - No. Just no.
176 - Why then do you feel comfortable bandwagonning me for two days without throwing up a solid case until now?
188 - Is that not the purpose of your post now?
434 - 577 Sigh. It is rather clear that you have characterized me as scum, so if you could tell me how I could convince you otherwise, if that is even possible.
634 - WOW. Just wow. Never be a vig ever. You have the WORST case of tunnel vision known to man, what I was TRYING to do was rid myself of any tunnel vision I might still have and read with as little influence as I could manage, why don't you try that instead of reading for my scumminess.
642 - That's exactly it, he was voting me to get me to post more, NOT because I was scum (at least not from what he said). As I have said this is the time to pick your scum.

Scum (In no order): Charter, Farkshinsoup, Macavenger

It is rather hard to defend against someone who everyone views as 'scummy town'. Vote me or don't I'm tired of people talking about it.

[camn]

Whether you are tired of it or not isn't particularly relevant.

Now, Gurgi.

Regarding post 174-176.

You are stating that 174 was simply a Defense of Netlava? You were just trying to slow down the wagon until he had a chance to defend himself?
Are you saying you had no plan to vote him AT THAT POINT?

[Lord Gurgi]

Whether you are tired of it or not isn't particularly relevant.

Now, Gurgi.

Regarding post 174-176.

You are stating that 174 was simply a Defense of Netlava? You were just trying to slow down the wagon until he had a chance to defend himself?
Are you saying you had no plan to vote him AT THAT POINT?

Yes. Yes.

[Walnut]

CHarter, it looks like you read the quote before, not the one following the colon:

Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:
Quote:

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?


This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.

[camn]

@ Gurgi....

so how was it that, 2 posts later, you ended up VOTING him?
Be Honest. What changed your mind?


@walnut. . charter doesn't answer direct questions

[charter]

CHarter, it looks like you read the quote before, not the one following the colon:

Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:
Quote:

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?


This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.

I never saw a point in responding. What am I supposed to say? No, in fact I am scum?

[camn]

See what I mean?

[charter]

Wow camn you sure seem brilliant, why don't you do something besides comment pointlessly on all my posts?

[Lord Gurgi]

@ Gurgi....

so how was it that, 2 posts later, you ended up VOTING him?
Be Honest. What changed your mind?

As I said before, when someone jumps down my throat, suddenly out of nowhere accuses me of being some great controller of the town just for trying to preemptively slow a wagon on him, I voted him because that is as jumpy as you can possibly get.

[CF Riot]

Walnut 638: I did answer your question. Post 612:

As for your role changing my opinion of Charter's role: Only two of the things I listed about Charter's play being scummy were related to you. That was one of the reasons why I don't see Charter's scummy play as being actual scum. The things he does that I find scummy are aimed at multiple people, over a variety of different arguments. Therefore, if you flip town, that alone wouldn't point me back to Charter just because he's voting you right now.

I did forget to answer the part about defending unjustly though. I think this is kind of minor, as I said he

wasn't

doing this, but I'll try to think of a good example for you. Just as people can attack others for crap reasons, you could post WIFOMy responses to others' posts in hopes that people merely take it as truth when they read it rather than weighing it against actual game evidence. That would be what I consider defending yourself unjustly. But like I said, I don't think Charter did.

Tinsley already said this but I also think the posts you point out from your early D2 support my case.
----
LG 642: I don't see it as OMGUS. I think Fark's vote for LG was sort of opportunistic and the "pressure" comment just looks like a disclaimer to me. However I don't agree with LG's case against Fark that he's contradicting himself either. It's possible he did find LG's lack of posting scummy and vote worthy.
----
I'm giving my thoughts as I read, so just for my own reference and a better gauge at what I'm thinking for you guys, I'd like to say at the point before Charter posted his read of LG, I was of the opinion that neither LG nor Fark look that scummy. Fark a little more, because he is giving a lot of different votes and each time appears very confident in it. But each time they appear to have weak reasoning to me, and they are all switched or removed later fairly quickly for the level of confidence he originally puts into them.
----
After the 3 opinions of Charter's case, (His own, Camn's, LG's.) I'm thinking not scum on LG. I think Charter's interpretation of most of LG's posts are in the extreme, but the one thing I did roll around about his post was while none of LG's posts seem very scummy his overall play is sort of questionable. By this I mean most of his suspects have been fairly popular candidates, and he has some tendency to follow after others' claims rather than leading the way. These are definitely grounds to monitor LG's play and look for any ties back to him from scum we find. However I don't really see them as strong scum tells or grounds to lynch upon. All are rather vague and completely logical town play as well.
----
Despite the fact that I think LG's case is chasing shadows, I'm glad it has happened as it has made LG a lot more active, which I was wanting a few days ago. LG if I may ask, could you give a little reasoning on who of your suspects is the best lynch for today and why?

Camn do you have a list of suspects at this point? You're not only not-voting, but you don't seem to be chasing any of your own leads either.

The multiple absences stacking on top of each other is bothersome. I am glad it is not slowing down conversation though.

[camn]

I totally have a list of suspects.

As I have stated earlier.. I love to all talk about the same thing at the same time... so I usually lay low until there is some room to speak... and with THIS GROUP it's hard to squish it in!
That said, since you asked.. I'll tell you.

Understand...I don't have time to prepare detailed cases right now. And I might not even have them. I kind of play backwards from you all.. I assume everyone is Scum... and move them OFF the list as they act normal.
Anyway, people I still think are suspect today?

1. Macavenger. - Playing a perfect townie. Just how I would play if I were scum! Real townies make mistakes.

2. Lord Gurgi - Moving downward on my list. I agree with CF yet again

3. Charter - as previously noted.

Now understand.. this thread is almost too unwieldy for me to build historical cases. Luckily I don't like doing that, anyway. I like questioning people. So when the conversation comes around to people I am interested in. . . I will interview them. (I come from playing real-life style.)


Now.. @Gurgi.

You are saying that Netlava Jumping all over you seemed Scummy to you?
What is scummy about it?
I only ask because 1 post seems a little thin to TOTALLY change your mind!
But you are saying Jumpy = Scummy. .?

[Walnut]

1. Macavenger. - Playing a perfect townie. Just how I would play if I were scum! Real townies make mistakes.

Camn, this argument comes up frequently, but is generally regarded to be WIFOM. It is called "Too townie" and there is a wiki page that explains why it does not work. Also, you are saying that Macavenger is playing perfectly, and his main target is me, but I am not in your top three scum list. Either this is a contradicition, or you are referring to him "playing a perfect townie style". I find that a far more legitimate reason to suspect him. It is easy to hide as scum when you base your arguments on standard scumtells.

Also @ Camn: CFRiot says "I'm thinking not scum on LG." You say that you agree with Riot, but you have LG as number two on your scum list. That looks weird- what do you mean here?

@Charter

I never saw a point in responding. What am I supposed to say? No, in fact I am scum?

I wondered if your silence indicated a tacit agreement with them, which would naturally lead to a rethinking of your approach so far.

[Mizzy]

ShadowGirl will return in about 5 days. Would you all prefer a replacement or to wait?

[charter]

Replacement. Definately.

@camn, walnut is right, just because someone is being extremely town, doesn't mean a thing. Suspecting Mac based soley on that is scummy.

@Riot, if you go back and reread Netlava's and LG's posts from yesterday, and take into account knowing Netlava is town, LG plays like he knew it yesterday as well. All LG did yesterday was put his votes on the most popular lynch candidates and never offer anything productive to finding scum. Pretty much all of Netlava's arguments against LG were perfectly good, but Netlava had already dug himself a grave. Posts 174-176 in particular are what make me most suspicious of LG. Also, why do you think he's all of a sudden started posting more since he's been called out?

[camn]

I know regarding Mac. I'm sure if I looked at him harder, He would be off my list.....

But I told you, I'm backwards. I HAVEN"T looked at him very hard... thus he is still on my list.

I don't usually make lists

Anyway, Walnut.. I do mean what you said.

At Charter.. as I wrote.. I don't suspect him because of that. I suspect EVERYONE based on nothing at all. Then I slowly clear people that do things I don't think scum would do.

I know it's weird....but It makes the game more fun for me.

... and never offer anything productive to finding scum. ...

I agree with you regarding posts 174-176... but I need to point out this part.
Last I checked.. nobody has found any scum yet. Thus I see this argument as less than valid. At this point, even the most fevered scumhunters could be misleading us all.

c