Mini 672 - Tranquility (Game Over)

[Nameless]

Oh, hey. You know what would be really stupid awesome? If Zazier appeared out of lurking to claim backup cop! With a guilty on me, even. That would make my decision so much easier. No wait,

I

should claim backup cop, and I only found out when Porkens died after I'd already claimed. And I have a guilty on Charter and an innocent on myself and myself (to make sure I'm

really

sane!). Yeah, that would be neat.

[/Not even slightly serious.]

[Kmd4390]

It appeared to me that he was open to both possibilities and

leaning

towards the probability that you are scumpair with charter. Why do you say that he won't change his mind? I don't like that.

He seems convinced to me (if he is majority) that charter and I are minority. That's just how it seems to me.

@all of you who voted the no-lynch. Why did you rush into it? I think that is just odd. Now the game is in it's last day. Since you voted no-lynch now it's easier for the scumpair to finish. If yesterday they needed two votes to kill a majority member now they only need one vote to hammer and win. Considering Charter and KMD pushed the most for the No-Lynch they would be my prime suspects right now.

Well, I don't have the distraction of thinking Camn is scum. She flipped town. If we mislynched yesterday, we lost. Mislynch today, we lose. The difference is we have better odds for hitting scum. Even looking at it from your point of view. To you, either Charter and I were scum OR 2 of Nameless, ZazieR, and Camn were scum. So you had to pick between claimed masons or the other 3. If you picked the other 3, you still had to pick the right 2. Now you only have to decide claimed masons or the other 2. I look at this and think: If the other townie picks right (50% chance), and charter and I pick right (67% chance each), we win the game. Odds are in the majority's favor right now because of the no lynch.

... the "Charter vs. Nameless: Lynch one now" idea.

I request that nobody vote until both Charter and I have made our cases

We have a code zero three misrepresentation alert! All men to battlestations, and get my sarcastic retort specialist on the phone! Oh noes, I repeat, OH - NOES. This is not a drill.

Ok, ok. You didn't mean lynch now as in immediately. But you still set up a situation where we lynch either you or charter.

It's still possible that both are town.

Both Stef and Zazier will know if this is true or not. Who are you trying to convince then, Charter or I?

If Stef/ZazieR (applies to both) is town, they know that either charter or Nameless is scum. This is true.

If Nameless is town, he knows it's either Kmd/Charter or Stef/ZazieR.

Kmd/Charter know it's 2 of Nameless/Stef/ZaizeR.

So you (Nameless) and Charter both need to realize, if you (nameless) are town, that it isn't a guarentee that the other is scum.

So to answer your question, I'm talking to both you and charter.

Problem is, if he is town, he really thinks he is right and won't change his mind.

Overstatement.

It appeared to me that he was open to both possibilities and leaning towards the probability that you are scumpair with charter.

Under

statement.

So what is it then? You think Charter and I are scum, but are willing to listen to a possible Stef/ZazieR scumpair? That's all I can think of that is in between the two.

Still in the same spot I was before. Nameless/Stef/ZazieR, 2 are scum.

Still waiting for ZazieR to claim.

Still don't like a Nameless vs. Charter tossup.

[ZazieR]

I'm mafioso.

I need to do a lot of reread now. This night got me really confused.
I'm getting my thoughts up soon. That's if you let me for once.

[Kmd4390]

Mafioso as in vanilla?

And I'll wait because of the situation we are in right now.

[ZazieR]

Exactly. And I appreciate that you wait. I have some other games as well, who want to hear from me.
As you might know, I'm kinda popular around here .
Although, this popularity is negative in some of my games .

[Nameless]

So what is it then? You think Charter and I are scum, but are willing to listen to a possible Stef/ZazieR scumpair? That's all I can think of that is in between the two.

I am 95% sure that you and Charter are scum and 105% sure your play is the worst. It kind of balances out, but I'm erring on the side of caution for the moment. (Also, it would be hypocritical to place my vote but then ask everyone else to hold off until they'd heard our final arguments.)

Megapost in T minus, eh, call it four hours.

[Nameless]

Charter is scum.

This is why:

Active lurking

Charter starts off D1 by doing this. His first few posts are no more than poor jokes or his personal indifference towards baseball. When he actually places a vote the only reason given is:

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

Although later he assures us that:

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi

Charter echoes what other people have said several other times as well, notably #83 where he basically rewords a question then insists in #88 it was still different. It's not until I mention his lack of contribution that ...

OMGUS, and contradicting accusations

Charter suddenly votes me. He says at this point he was suspicious of me earlier, but the only time he even mentioned me before that point was to say he agreed with me or that I brought up good points. (A "flip flop", if we felt like using Charter's terms. A "blatent" one, even.) The attack itself is apparently on the basis that I was suspicious of most players. (For reference, I refuted this in #237.) The worst part of the whole post is probably the part where Charter says that I've:

managed to name five people as almost definitive scum

But this is apparently at the same time as I'm:

aka. wishy washy on his stances.

AND Charter at this point now suspects two players purely on the basis that I didn't find anything suspicious about them, which is pretty flimsy in my books.
Later he, Charter does something very similar with Drake. First Charter says Drake makes a good post. Then Charter suspects Drake because I don't. Then Charter says that he will only be "much more suspicious" of Drake if I flipped scum, but it's meaningless until he knows my role. Then Charter is willing to vote Drake. (That’s #69, #226, #234-#247 and #252, just after Drake points out a flaw in Charter's defence of another player). Charter also promised he'd make a case against Drake at the next chance he got, but six posts and four IRL days later he never did so before Drake was NKed.

Connections to Rishi

It's really not much of a stretch to see Charter bussing Rishi D1. Once serious discussion starts up the first thing Charter does is jump onto a Rishi bandwagon without any of his own reasons. When asked why, he doesn't answer, but basically responds with 'Why not?' (#46). Charter's next post is then accusing Camn of not answering questions - while he still doesn't answer the "Instant Rishi Bandwagon?" prompt.
Eventually, Charter does give the excuse that he voted Rishi only for being the first bandwagon he could start (poor majority play, as I mentioned in #78) and had no reasons. He justifies this with unexplained "quite a bit of information" "from a larger wagon", but then in his next post is reluctant to use the word bandwagoning outside of quotes and calls three votes "harmless". By the time we reach #131 Charter once again thinks "pressure on Rishi is the way to go right now" and tells Rishi to post or die, but still gives

no reasons

for this.
Charter only unvotes Rishi when he decides to attack Drake and I. After this Charter occasionally reminds us Rishi is a lesser suspect of his, but never for better reasons than "vibes, it's not anything solid." When he decides Rishi is no longer a suspect of his, it's for equally vague reasons ("he had a post that makes me think he's town"). Charter NEVER explained what he suspected Rishi and NEVER explained why he stopped suspecting Rishi. This indicates Charter only brought up suspicions to distance himself from Rishi.

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

Once Drake was NKed, Charter never really scumhunts or even considers other suspects than myself. He openly states #333 that I am his only suspect, at which points he votes and makes no effort to do much of anything other than briefly respond to other player's questions. Charter contradicts himself a few times during this period, regarding suspects (#333 - one, #346, multiple) and Porkens (#349 - "said nothing about Porkens", #342/343 - does in fact speak about Porkens).
Later in the game Charter slightly expands his radar to include Porkens as someone his insists his scum, and at least in this case for a few legitimate reasons, but #649 should sum up the extent to which Charter was still tunnel visioning rather than scumhunting.
Charter does stop lurking for a large post in #418, but it's mostly just a mess including such gems as accusing Camn of rolefishing towards someone who has already claimed there role (although Charter insisted there were "references to a half dozen other PRs.") and the stupid "Scummy because I do that when I'm scum" argument (this was regarding future NK speculation). Charter then lurks for a few days again (but at least he apologises for it!)

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

After being sure that I was by far the scummiest player for some time, Charter decides to vote Porkens in #535 on the basis of Porkens making a minor point against Kmd and Camn - Charter even admits he's not trying to convince anyone, so this basically amounts to another OMGUS for his partner. IMHO what Porkens pointed out WAS still slightly suspicious, even knowing Camn is majority, but according to Charter it was "the scummiest thing said in this game". And then immediately turns his attention back to me by reposting a long debunked and non updated case against me. Somewhat later (#651) Charter returns his vote to me, again with no explanation.

Refusal to answer questions

If you're just going to do this, I'll stop responding to anything you direct at me

I try not to even acknowledge crap cases put out against me,

Actually, I'm done arguing with you porkens.

You get the idea. Then there are the times when Charter just accuses others of not reading his posts rather than defend himself. And let's not forget the times (#558, #641) Charter decided it was a bad thing to bring up scumtells if they weren't specifically directed at you. And when Charter does reply to SpyreX's questions, he frequently didn't actually answer them:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

You know I cant answer this right now.

(This exchange was

not

related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

So, Why Porkens or Nameless and not me?

I think they are scum and you are not. Their actions are different than yours.

And Charter's later awful and highly anti-majority excuse for these kind of actions:

I didn't even try and act not scummy

The mason claim

What the claim proves: Kmd and Charter can nighttalk, and planned a mason claim. (As can scum.)
What the claim does not explain: Every single point against Charter thus far and those still left to go in this post. Enough said.

Nonsensical statements

Fair enough, EVERYONE went a bit nuts near the end of D2, but some of Charter's statements are particularly illogical.

@Spyrex, I completely see how you could have thought of me as scum. I saw it the whole time, but other than just repeating, "you're wrong spyrex", I had no way of getting you off my back.

This is one of several instances where Charter ignores the vast majority of the arguments made against him, instead making generalised statements and attempting to explain away everything unrelated via the mason claim. SpyreX suspected Charter for many reasons (Charter's unexplained difference between SpyreX and Nameless/Porkens, Charter wavering on his Rishi stance were two recent examples) that are not explained by the claim, and if Charter is majority then he clearly COULD have gotten SpyreX off his back by explaining those kinds of statements.

Hey, looks like I was right about Nameless as well. All of your scumtells are explained away by the fact that I interpret and think about things before I act on them.

The first sentence here is unexplained and meaningless. The second is false, senseless, and another unexplained generalisation.

However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

You're allowed to change your mind, it's the fact that you do it so as to be going with the crowd that is scummy.

In the first quote Charter is obviously saying that changing your mind (all that Porkens did) is a bad thing, so that's a pretty stupid statement and contradiction in itself. In the second quote here Charter seems to think that it is scummy to change your mind after several other people have reasonably done so, which is even more nonsensical.

[Porkens]'s probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

About the only thing linking Porkens and I at that time were that we shifted our votes towards Charter together (along with SpyreX) and that neither of us initially believed the mason claim - I'd been unsure of Porkens most of D2. Apparently, Charter thinks that agreeing in that instance would have been enough to guarantee we were of the same alignment. That is, in fact, craplogic.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS [...] How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

The answer was majority quickhammering, but the leading question was clearly BS even at the time. The fact Charter assumes he was the only one to notice a particular detail (rather than eg. nobody considering it overly worth mentioning) along with the aggressiveness and forcefulness of his post is arrogant and not even trying to help reasonable discussion for the majority.

IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

I'm not sure exactly what Charter's logic was supposed to be here, but apparently the uninformed majority

never

mislynch power roles if they wait a period of time before making their decision?

NO. YOU LIE AGAIN PORKENS. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. I VERY DISTINCTLY SAID DO NOT MASSCLAIM.

Charter here interprets a light hearted joke as a damning scumtell. Either that, or Charter is playing one long joke on the rest of us. -_-

Suddenly stops contributing

As of N2, Charter has done no scumhunting and made no effort to convince anyone who is scum. Filter his posts and check. There's not much to explain or say about that.

'Exaggerations' when making accusations

These should speak for themselves. I'm only quoting four here for the sake of brevity, but Charter has been doing this in various degrees across the whole game.

Melikesfood and Stormer [...] they're probably scum too. Kmd and Malyss [...] are most likely to be scum. Charter [...] may well be lurker scum.

[Nameless] Has managed to name five people as almost definitive scum,

Your weak defense of him is noted, and I defy you to find something to defend him with that comes from this game.

Are you serious? So now my only option is thinking that Food is scum? Do I have no free will to think what I want? [...]I'd say drake is obvscum for his blatent not even considering the other side of this issue, and in fact, trying to get others to blindly follow him without thinking for themselves.

Why am I interested? Because I think there's a decent chance you are both scum together.

You are tunneling so bad it's not even funny. [...] Seriously, you're doing the same thing as Nameless where you're finding more scum than there are.

Wait, that's another stupid contradiction I missed up until now too. He had tunnel vision AND was suspicious of too many people?

Having slept on it, I agree that this claim (as badly done as it was) is too bold for a scum-pair to make at this point in the game. And you are right; a cult would be overpowered in a 12 person game (where I come from, masons can recruit, and I always forget they don't here.)

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything

I think I'm done here. *Smiles, and gestures Charter towards the stage.*

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, any objections to me responding to that after Charter does? I see some holes, but I'm sure you want Charter to respond himself.

[Nameless]

You can respond

now

for all I care, what I really want to see is Charter compile his own case against me in a similar style. But they're going to have to be some pretty big holes to bring Charter's scuminess down to the same level as Stef's.

[Kmd4390]

I have half a response typed up and class in one minute. I'll PM it to myself and then post it after class if I have time. It will go up eventually though.

[charter]

No, I will shoot down whatever terrible logic he has posted tonight when I get a chance to catch up in this game.

[Kmd4390]

Well, I have most of it typed up, so I'll post mine and you can post yours.

[Kmd4390]

Some of this won't be a Charter defense. There will be some points on Nameless, Stef, and ZazieR too. Why? Because it's productive and because I'm looking back at things anyway so it's convenient for me.

Keep in mind, most of it is a Charter defense in response to Nameless, just there are brief points that are slightly off topic from what Nameless said.

Active lurking

Charter starts off D1 by doing this. His first few posts are no more than poor jokes or his personal indifference towards baseball. When he actually places a vote the only reason given is:

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

Although later he assures us that:

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi

Charter echoes what other people have said several other times as well, notably #83 where he basically rewords a question then insists in #88 it was still different. It's not until I mention his lack of contribution that ...

On Day 1, especially at the time on day 1 that you quoted, it's early in the game and there isn't much that CAN be said. The Rishi case is the only serious thing that was out right now. We know that he has flipped scum now, but at the time, I didn't see a real case on him. Charter's vote looked like he was trying to add pressure early. That's how games usually start. Someone makes the first serious vote, people bandwagon, someone votes a bandwagoner, and we have a mafia game. I think at this early point in the game, (this is WIFOM, I know) scum are more likely to FoS Rishi, or acknowledge suspicion in some other way without voting. Charter didn't do that. He voted.

Nameless, I see that you started the wagon. That could easily be considered bussing you know. If Charter was going to bus, I don't think he would jump on as a second vote when the first had little reasoning.

Actually, looking back, you voted Rishi early and then let him off easy. Maybe voting to show us that you were suspicious and then unvoting before it got out of hand. Not bussing, but I won't backspace it above because it was what I thought before I read the next couple of pages. What actually happened looks more like what I mentioned when I said scum would FoS or mention suspicion in some other way. The vote shows that suspicion was there, but the quick unvote shows that you weren't completely serious about it.

To be fair, and to help me personally, I'll look at how Stef and Malyss (who ZazieR replaced) reacted to the early Rishi wagon.

Stef FoS'd Nameless for bringing it up. This could be:
A)Scum defending a buddy from town.
B)Scum seeing a buddy voting another and wondering what the heck is going on.
C)Town disagreeing with the case.

Malyss ignored it completely. This was before she went inactive as there are posts from around this time.

OMGUS, and contradicting accusations

Charter suddenly votes me. He says at this point he was suspicious of me earlier, but the only time he even mentioned me before that point was to say he agreed with me or that I brought up good points. (A "flip flop", if we felt like using Charter's terms. A "blatent" one, even.) The attack itself is apparently on the basis that I was suspicious of most players. (For reference, I refuted this in #237.) The worst part of the whole post is probably the part where Charter says that I've:

managed to name five people as almost definitive scum

But this is apparently at the same time as I'm:

aka. wishy washy on his stances.

AND Charter at this point now suspects two players purely on the basis that I didn't find anything suspicious about them, which is pretty flimsy in my books.
Later he, Charter does something very similar with Drake. First Charter says Drake makes a good post. Then Charter suspects Drake because I don't. Then Charter says that he will only be "much more suspicious" of Drake if I flipped scum, but it's meaningless until he knows my role. Then Charter is willing to vote Drake. (That’s #69, #226, #234-#247 and #252, just after Drake points out a flaw in Charter's defence of another player). Charter also promised he'd make a case against Drake at the next chance he got, but six posts and four IRL days later he never did so before Drake was NKed.

Charter was being accused of only echoing what people have said. He may have felt the need to build his own case at this time. It's possible that he found you (Nameless) suspcious but hadn't said anything about it yet. The thing about small suspicions on almost everyone is a valid point and IS wishy washy. You set yourself up to vote almost anyone and say "see, I was suspicious earlier."

I agree that suspicion on Drake and Porkens may not have been a good way to go. Again, I know this is WIFOM, but I'd expect you to be smarter scum than that. If you imply almost everyone in the game, you are probably going to imply your buddies. I can even see you leaving out a couple of town players intentionally hoping that someone would make the connection after you flip scum.

I see that he didn't make the case on Drake. Not sure why. I'll let him respond to that.

Connections to Rishi

It's really not much of a stretch to see Charter bussing Rishi D1. Once serious discussion starts up the first thing Charter does is jump onto a Rishi bandwagon without any of his own reasons. When asked why, he doesn't answer, but basically responds with 'Why not?' (#46). Charter's next post is then accusing Camn of not answering questions - while he still doesn't answer the "Instant Rishi Bandwagon?" prompt.
Eventually, Charter does give the excuse that he voted Rishi only for being the first bandwagon he could start (poor majority play, as I mentioned in #78) and had no reasons. He justifies this with unexplained "quite a bit of information" "from a larger wagon", but then in his next post is reluctant to use the word bandwagoning outside of quotes and calls three votes "harmless". By the time we reach #131 Charter once again thinks "pressure on Rishi is the way to go right now" and tells Rishi to post or die, but still gives

no reasons

for this.
Charter only unvotes Rishi when he decides to attack Drake and I. After this Charter occasionally reminds us Rishi is a lesser suspect of his, but never for better reasons than "vibes, it's not anything solid." When he decides Rishi is no longer a suspect of his, it's for equally vague reasons ("he had a post that makes me think he's town"). Charter NEVER explained what he suspected Rishi and NEVER explained why he stopped suspecting Rishi. This indicates Charter only brought up suspicions to distance himself from Rishi.

He was bussing as the second vote with almost no reasoning? Like I said already, there was little to go on at this point. I think his vote was for pressure.

You say he was trying to start a bandwagon. That adds pressure. I don't see why it's scummy. Scum slip under pressure, so adding it only helps town. Bandwagoning to the point of a lynch is scummy. Bandwagoning nowhere near a lynch to add some pressure is ok.

3 votes with 7 to lynch

IS

harmless as far as lynching. I don't expect 4 players to jump on with nothing to go by. If that happened, would you really be looking at the third vote? I'd look at the 4 who jumped on before he'd have a chance to unvote.

That's interesting. You accuse him of bussing, but then say he called Rishi a lesser suspect. Two very different things here.

He never explained why he suspected Rishi early because it was for pressure.

Not sure I have time to finish responding. Class in 8 minutes.

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

Once Drake was NKed, Charter never really scumhunts or even considers other suspects than myself. He openly states #333 that I am his only suspect, at which points he votes and makes no effort to do much of anything other than briefly respond to other player's questions. Charter contradicts himself a few times during this period, regarding suspects (#333 - one, #346, multiple) and Porkens (#349 - "said nothing about Porkens", #342/343 - does in fact speak about Porkens).
Later in the game Charter slightly expands his radar to include Porkens as someone his insists his scum, and at least in this case for a few legitimate reasons, but #649 should sum up the extent to which Charter was still tunnel visioning rather than scumhunting.
Charter does stop lurking for a large post in #418, but it's mostly just a mess including such gems as accusing Camn of rolefishing towards someone who has already claimed there role (although Charter insisted there were "references to a half dozen other PRs.") and the stupid "Scummy because I do that when I'm scum" argument (this was regarding future NK speculation). Charter then lurks for a few days again (but at least he apologises for it!)

Wait, so you accuse him of NOT scumhunting, and then make points about how he WAS suspecting players? And HE is contradicting himself? Huge contradiction on your part here, Nameless.

His suspicion on Porkens was legit. I suspected Porkens as well. So did enough people that he was lynched. Actually, I want to go look at the Porkens lynch.

Nameless, you suggested the massclaim. If you are scum, I'm sure you knew Rishi was planning to fakeclaim cop. You would have wanted the real cop outed at this time. But, before anyone claims anything, you vote for Rishi. I can see you doing this as scum. You would vote Rishi and then want Porkens lynched.

Wow, looking up to the time Porkens self-hammered and the final vote count, you were the

only

one to stay on Rishi. (For the record, Stef was on Porkens and ZazieR wasn't voting at all.) This looks very good for you. You knew it was Rishi the whole time. Everyone else was wrong in voting Porkens. Oh wait, knowing who is scum is easy if you are scum yourself.

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

After being sure that I was by far the scummiest player for some time, Charter decides to vote Porkens in #535 on the basis of Porkens making a minor point against Kmd and Camn - Charter even admits he's not trying to convince anyone, so this basically amounts to another OMGUS for his partner. IMHO what Porkens pointed out WAS still slightly suspicious, even knowing Camn is majority, but according to Charter it was "the scummiest thing said in this game". And then immediately turns his attention back to me by reposting a long debunked and non updated case against me. Somewhat later (#651) Charter returns his vote to me, again with no explanation.

This was before the mason claim. Porkens was trying to make conncections between Camn and myself. Charter knew these accusations to be false and reacted. He was mistaken in thinking Porkens was scum trying to make connections. Looking back, I see what Porkens was looking at. As town, he saw two players going back and forth, and was trying to make sure nobody assumed a one town, one scum situation. From his point of view, it was possible that we were both scum. Camn has flipped town, so this has been proven false. Also proven false is Charter's accusation based on this. Porkens' accusation was false and he wasn't scum, so it's also proven that false accusations aren't guarenteed to mean scum. Charter was wrong just like Porkens, our cop, was wrong.

He wasn't trying to convince anyone because that would mean claiming, which he didn't want to do yet. He knew that I was town because we are confirmed masons. He can't get that across to anyone else without claiming. Actually, he'd have to claim for both of us in order to do that. And I wouldn't expect anyone to follow blindly, so if it were me, I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone in that sense either. I might have tried to make a case on Porkens though.

Why is changing a vote back to your previous number one suspect scummy?

Refusal to answer questions

If you're just going to do this, I'll stop responding to anything you direct at me

I try not to even acknowledge crap cases put out against me,

Actually, I'm done arguing with you porkens.

You get the idea. Then there are the times when Charter just accuses others of not reading his posts rather than defend himself. And let's not forget the times (#558, #641) Charter decided it was a bad thing to bring up scumtells if they weren't specifically directed at you. And when Charter does reply to SpyreX's questions, he frequently didn't actually answer them:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

You know I cant answer this right now.

(This exchange was

not

related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

So, Why Porkens or Nameless and not me?

I think they are scum and you are not. Their actions are different than yours.

And Charter's later awful and highly anti-majority excuse for these kind of actions:

I didn't even try and act not scummy

I think the first quote was in response to something he saw as word-twisting.

Yes, anti-town. People should respond to "crap cases" and point out why they are crap. You can't deny that there are a lot of players who say things like this even as town though. I find myself arguing this in games a lot. I've noticed that it's not just scum that say this. Sometimes, it's players on SA who think they are above me and don't have to respond to anything I say.

The Porkens thing is similar to the above in some ways. I can see the point here though. Both were very clear on their stances and nothing was going to change for the better.

He didn't answer Spy because it would require claiming. Spy had accused Charter and myself of being scum. Charter knew that Spy was wrong with this. He wasn't going to come out and say "you are wrong because we are masons." Ok, I just read that you said it was about Rishi. I'll go look now.

You're twisting everything I say to make me look bad. The sad part is I actually think

you think

you're on to something. I can tell you that you're horribly wrong in almost your entire read of this game, but that probably won't help matters.

Ok, first of all, it wasn't a definite "you are on to something." It was a "you THINK you are on to something."

Spy came back with:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

So, knowing that Spy was town, I think Spy unintentionally misread it.

Let me see what came before all of this now so we can find out if you are right about it being about Food and Rishi.

This is an obvious statement. This has nothing to do with the fact neither Porkens nor Camn, by defintion, could be role fishing for a role that already claimed.

Yeah, you best hope I don't get to L-1 then if you plan on making it far in this game.

Wow, this is just THE AWESOME. I'd love to see how you not being here would affect making it far. Unless, by "making it far" you mean that you're scum and killing you makes the game take less time.

In the scum-race update - Rishi seems to have sprung a leak and went into lurking but Charter decided to slam his foot down around that third turn and is touching Camn and KMD now... WHO WILL WIN?

P.S. Scum vibes from Rishi, Rishi is town. I LOVE IT

Ok, Charter never quoted, but it came after this post, so I think you are right. It was about his stance on Rishi.

But the fact is, he said he thought that Spy THOUGHT he was onto something, which I think meant Charter was saying Spy thought Charter was scum and that Spy was wrong.

Next point you mention is Spy asking why you and Porkens are scum and Spy isn't. I'd be asking why Spy was so anxious to group himself with Porkens and you. You 3 are all different players. Maybe certain aspects of your play are similar, but there is no guarentee that all 3 have the same role. Charter answered by saying he thought you and Porkens were scum and Spy wasn't. Why is this not an acceptable answer? Why does he have to say the 3 of you are all scum or all town? I see nothing scummy about suspecting you and Porkens, but NOT Spy. At the time, I was suspicious of Porkens, and slightly you, but I really didn't see Spy as scum. What I saw as rolefishing from Spy was annoying me, but I didn't think he was scum.

No idea about the not even trying to act not scummy comment. I mean, personally, I don't care if people see me as scummy. I just like to get ideas out. I don't know if this is what Charter meant or not though.

The mason claim

What the claim proves: Kmd and Charter can nighttalk, and planned a mason claim. (As can scum.)
What the claim does not explain: Every single point against Charter thus far and those still left to go in this post. Enough said.

Yes, we can definitely talk at night. Nobody will argue with you on this one. Scum talk at night. Masons talk at night. Point?

You see things as scummy from Charter. Ok. What does this have to do with the claim?

You just used the mason claim as a point against us. Why?

Nonsensical statements

Fair enough, EVERYONE went a bit nuts near the end of D2, but some of Charter's statements are particularly illogical.

@Spyrex, I completely see how you could have thought of me as scum. I saw it the whole time, but other than just repeating, "you're wrong spyrex", I had no way of getting you off my back.

This is one of several instances where Charter ignores the vast majority of the arguments made against him, instead making generalised statements and attempting to explain away everything unrelated via the mason claim. SpyreX suspected Charter for many reasons (Charter's unexplained difference between SpyreX and Nameless/Porkens, Charter wavering on his Rishi stance were two recent examples) that are not explained by the claim, and if Charter is majority then he clearly COULD have gotten SpyreX off his back by explaining those kinds of statements.

Hey, looks like I was right about Nameless as well. All of your scumtells are explained away by the fact that I interpret and think about things before I act on them.

The first sentence here is unexplained and meaningless. The second is false, senseless, and another unexplained generalisation.

However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

You're allowed to change your mind, it's the fact that you do it so as to be going with the crowd that is scummy.

In the first quote Charter is obviously saying that changing your mind (all that Porkens did) is a bad thing, so that's a pretty stupid statement and contradiction in itself. In the second quote here Charter seems to think that it is scummy to change your mind after several other people have reasonably done so, which is even more nonsensical.

[Porkens]'s probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

About the only thing linking Porkens and I at that time were that we shifted our votes towards Charter together (along with SpyreX) and that neither of us initially believed the mason claim - I'd been unsure of Porkens most of D2. Apparently, Charter thinks that agreeing in that instance would have been enough to guarantee we were of the same alignment. That is, in fact, craplogic.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS [...] How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

The answer was majority quickhammering, but the leading question was clearly BS even at the time. The fact Charter assumes he was the only one to notice a particular detail (rather than eg. nobody considering it overly worth mentioning) along with the aggressiveness and forcefulness of his post is arrogant and not even trying to help reasonable discussion for the majority.

IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

I'm not sure exactly what Charter's logic was supposed to be here, but apparently the uninformed majority

never

mislynch power roles if they wait a period of time before making their decision?

NO. YOU LIE AGAIN PORKENS. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. I VERY DISTINCTLY SAID DO NOT MASSCLAIM.

Charter here interprets a light hearted joke as a damning scumtell. Either that, or Charter is playing one long joke on the rest of us. -_-

He was saying that he could see why Spy saw it as scummy. Yes, he should have explained better, but can you honestly tell me that as town, you have never seen points against you that you have a hard time explaining? I think that was the case here. Not sure if it was this game or another, but one time as town, I used the line "if I were you, I'd question me too." I did my best to answer, but it wasn't a very good response. That happens sometimes.

He saw something that made him more confident on you being scum. This HAS NOT been proven false. From my point of view, it has a 67% chance of being true. From a neutral person watching the game, there would be a 40% chance of it being true. I don't see any reason to jump on that as a bad comment yet.

His comment on being positive about Porkens: this is why I don't use definites. He was confident, but not positive. He was wrong. As was I. You weren't though! You were the ONLY one who was right on voting Rishi! Good job on your part![/sarcastic props]

I agree with Charter's comment about changing your mind. Nothing wrong with that on it's own. Changing your mind in agreement with everyone else more times than one is scummy. It looks like someone who does that is trying to fit in, and not making their own points.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

I still think Porkens' hammer on Stormer was anti-town. Obviously not a scum move, but a ballsy one for a cop. I think you or Spy already mentioned that it was a ballsy move, and I agree. It was ballsy because it is just calling for suspcion the next day. It calls for suspcion because it was anti-town.

Being arrogant does not mean you are scum. Want a perfect example of that? On SA, Tom Tucker in Douglas Adams Mafia.(Too bad Spy is dead here. I know he read that game.) His ego made everyone want to lynch him whether he was scum or not. He was town. It was so bad that there was even a request by a survivng townie for an extra day AFTER the game just so they could lynch Tucker even if the town had already won! I will never listen to the case of arrogance, ego, or "holier than thou attitude" as scumtells again.

It makes it easier to avoid mislynching power roles if it discussed a little more. Doesn't completely eliminate the chance, but it helps.

Because he was STRONGLY against the massclaim. See the bolded statement saying NOT to do it. I think he was frustrated with Porkens at this point, and I see where this post came from.

Suddenly stops contributing

As of N2, Charter has done no scumhunting and made no effort to convince anyone who is scum. Filter his posts and check. There's not much to explain or say about that.

Well, Day 3 Rishi was the obvious lynch. Day 4 we no-lynched intentionally. And now we are here. What do you want in that time? You could argue that I haven't scum hunted in that time either. Or any of us.

'Exaggerations' when making accusations

These should speak for themselves. I'm only quoting four here for the sake of brevity, but Charter has been doing this in various degrees across the whole game.

Melikesfood and Stormer [...] they're probably scum too. Kmd and Malyss [...] are most likely to be scum. Charter [...] may well be lurker scum.

[Nameless] Has managed to name five people as almost definitive scum,

Your weak defense of him is noted, and I defy you to find something to defend him with that comes from this game.

Are you serious? So now my only option is thinking that Food is scum? Do I have no free will to think what I want? [...]I'd say drake is obvscum for his blatent not even considering the other side of this issue, and in fact, trying to get others to blindly follow him without thinking for themselves.

Why am I interested? Because I think there's a decent chance you are both scum together.

You are tunneling so bad it's not even funny. [...] Seriously, you're doing the same thing as Nameless where you're finding more scum than there are.

Wait, that's another stupid contradiction I missed up until now too. He had tunnel vision AND was suspicious of too many people?

Having slept on it, I agree that this claim (as badly done as it was) is too bold for a scum-pair to make at this point in the game. And you are right; a cult would be overpowered in a 12 person game (where I come from, masons can recruit, and I always forget they don't here.)

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything

I think I'm done here. *Smiles, and gestures Charter towards the stage.*

"Probably scum", "most likely to be scum", "may very well be scum". The last is the only one that you didn't sound very confident in. It's not a huge stretch to say that you "name five people as almost definitive scum." And you did put yourself where you can say you were suspicious of any of these people. It really helps if you need to vote one of these people for a bandwagon and someone says you never mentioned suspicion before. You can go back and say "yes I have. Right here."

Valid point with Drake. No offense to Drake, but he is one of those players who jumps on stupid things like that. He called Charter suspicious because he didn't think Food was scum. Bad argument from Drake. I'd be frustrated too.

Valid point at first. Spy was tunneling on us being scum. Just like you are now. Not sure where Spy was naming more scum than there were though. I probably could find it looking back, but I won't unless you really want me to do so badly enough that your vote hinges on whether Spy named several people. I don't expect that to be the case, but if it is, let me know.

Tunnel vision can mean a couple of things:
A) You will only listen to things that show a person to be one alignment and ignore everything else.
B) You only look at one player (or very few players) and ignore all others.
I think Charter meant A and you are taking it as B. If he meant B, it's a contradiction. If he meant A, it isn't a contradiction at all. Nameless, be careful not to strawman.

Fact is, Porkens did a complete 180. He completely refused to believe the claim at first, and then decided to believe it. At the time, it looked like he changed his mind in order to agree with everyone after the lynch wasn't going to happen. Now, I think he just realized he was off on his take on the mason claim and on the cult theory.



So, that's what I have. Sorry it took so long to get this post up. I think I PM'd it to myself 4 or 5 times because I was interupted by something. Charter, I'd reccomend still responding to Nameless, mostly because there were a couple of things I couldn't answer because I didn't know what was going through your head. Also because it's good to get your own take on these things.


Logic tells me Nameless is scum. Gut says Stef. I don't want to ignore the possibility that ZazieR is scum too though. My guess right now would be Nameless and Stef in that order.

[Kmd4390]

Some of this won't be a Charter defense. There will be some points on Nameless, Stef, and ZazieR too. Why? Because it's productive and because I'm looking back at things anyway so it's convenient for me.

Keep in mind, most of it is a Charter defense in response to Nameless, just there are brief points that are slightly off topic from what Nameless said.

Active lurking

Charter starts off D1 by doing this. His first few posts are no more than poor jokes or his personal indifference towards baseball. When he actually places a vote the only reason given is:

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

Although later he assures us that:

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi

Charter echoes what other people have said several other times as well, notably #83 where he basically rewords a question then insists in #88 it was still different. It's not until I mention his lack of contribution that ...

On Day 1, especially at the time on day 1 that you quoted, it's early in the game and there isn't much that CAN be said. The Rishi case is the only serious thing that was out right now. We know that he has flipped scum now, but at the time, I didn't see a real case on him. Charter's vote looked like he was trying to add pressure early. That's how games usually start. Someone makes the first serious vote, people bandwagon, someone votes a bandwagoner, and we have a mafia game. I think at this early point in the game, (this is WIFOM, I know) scum are more likely to FoS Rishi, or acknowledge suspicion in some other way without voting. Charter didn't do that. He voted.

Nameless, I see that you started the wagon. That could easily be considered bussing you know. If Charter was going to bus, I don't think he would jump on as a second vote when the first had little reasoning.

Actually, looking back, you voted Rishi early and then let him off easy. Maybe voting to show us that you were suspicious and then unvoting before it got out of hand. Not bussing, but I won't backspace it above because it was what I thought before I read the next couple of pages. What actually happened looks more like what I mentioned when I said scum would FoS or mention suspicion in some other way. The vote shows that suspicion was there, but the quick unvote shows that you weren't completely serious about it.

To be fair, and to help me personally, I'll look at how Stef and Malyss (who ZazieR replaced) reacted to the early Rishi wagon.

Stef FoS'd Nameless for bringing it up. This could be:
A)Scum defending a buddy from town.
B)Scum seeing a buddy voting another and wondering what the heck is going on.
C)Town disagreeing with the case.

Malyss ignored it completely. This was before she went inactive as there are posts from around this time.

OMGUS, and contradicting accusations

Charter suddenly votes me. He says at this point he was suspicious of me earlier, but the only time he even mentioned me before that point was to say he agreed with me or that I brought up good points. (A "flip flop", if we felt like using Charter's terms. A "blatent" one, even.) The attack itself is apparently on the basis that I was suspicious of most players. (For reference, I refuted this in #237.) The worst part of the whole post is probably the part where Charter says that I've:

managed to name five people as almost definitive scum

But this is apparently at the same time as I'm:

aka. wishy washy on his stances.

AND Charter at this point now suspects two players purely on the basis that I didn't find anything suspicious about them, which is pretty flimsy in my books.
Later he, Charter does something very similar with Drake. First Charter says Drake makes a good post. Then Charter suspects Drake because I don't. Then Charter says that he will only be "much more suspicious" of Drake if I flipped scum, but it's meaningless until he knows my role. Then Charter is willing to vote Drake. (That’s #69, #226, #234-#247 and #252, just after Drake points out a flaw in Charter's defence of another player). Charter also promised he'd make a case against Drake at the next chance he got, but six posts and four IRL days later he never did so before Drake was NKed.

Charter was being accused of only echoing what people have said. He may have felt the need to build his own case at this time. It's possible that he found you (Nameless) suspcious but hadn't said anything about it yet. The thing about small suspicions on almost everyone is a valid point and IS wishy washy. You set yourself up to vote almost anyone and say "see, I was suspicious earlier."

I agree that suspicion on Drake and Porkens may not have been a good way to go. Again, I know this is WIFOM, but I'd expect you to be smarter scum than that. If you imply almost everyone in the game, you are probably going to imply your buddies. I can even see you leaving out a couple of town players intentionally hoping that someone would make the connection after you flip scum.

I see that he didn't make the case on Drake. Not sure why. I'll let him respond to that.

Connections to Rishi

It's really not much of a stretch to see Charter bussing Rishi D1. Once serious discussion starts up the first thing Charter does is jump onto a Rishi bandwagon without any of his own reasons. When asked why, he doesn't answer, but basically responds with 'Why not?' (#46). Charter's next post is then accusing Camn of not answering questions - while he still doesn't answer the "Instant Rishi Bandwagon?" prompt.
Eventually, Charter does give the excuse that he voted Rishi only for being the first bandwagon he could start (poor majority play, as I mentioned in #78) and had no reasons. He justifies this with unexplained "quite a bit of information" "from a larger wagon", but then in his next post is reluctant to use the word bandwagoning outside of quotes and calls three votes "harmless". By the time we reach #131 Charter once again thinks "pressure on Rishi is the way to go right now" and tells Rishi to post or die, but still gives

no reasons

for this.
Charter only unvotes Rishi when he decides to attack Drake and I. After this Charter occasionally reminds us Rishi is a lesser suspect of his, but never for better reasons than "vibes, it's not anything solid." When he decides Rishi is no longer a suspect of his, it's for equally vague reasons ("he had a post that makes me think he's town"). Charter NEVER explained what he suspected Rishi and NEVER explained why he stopped suspecting Rishi. This indicates Charter only brought up suspicions to distance himself from Rishi.

He was bussing as the second vote with almost no reasoning? Like I said already, there was little to go on at this point. I think his vote was for pressure.

You say he was trying to start a bandwagon. That adds pressure. I don't see why it's scummy. Scum slip under pressure, so adding it only helps town. Bandwagoning to the point of a lynch is scummy. Bandwagoning nowhere near a lynch to add some pressure is ok.

3 votes with 7 to lynch

IS

harmless as far as lynching. I don't expect 4 players to jump on with nothing to go by. If that happened, would you really be looking at the third vote? I'd look at the 4 who jumped on before he'd have a chance to unvote.

That's interesting. You accuse him of bussing, but then say he called Rishi a lesser suspect. Two very different things here.

He never explained why he suspected Rishi early because it was for pressure.

Not sure I have time to finish responding. Class in 8 minutes.

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

Once Drake was NKed, Charter never really scumhunts or even considers other suspects than myself. He openly states #333 that I am his only suspect, at which points he votes and makes no effort to do much of anything other than briefly respond to other player's questions. Charter contradicts himself a few times during this period, regarding suspects (#333 - one, #346, multiple) and Porkens (#349 - "said nothing about Porkens", #342/343 - does in fact speak about Porkens).
Later in the game Charter slightly expands his radar to include Porkens as someone his insists his scum, and at least in this case for a few legitimate reasons, but #649 should sum up the extent to which Charter was still tunnel visioning rather than scumhunting.
Charter does stop lurking for a large post in #418, but it's mostly just a mess including such gems as accusing Camn of rolefishing towards someone who has already claimed there role (although Charter insisted there were "references to a half dozen other PRs.") and the stupid "Scummy because I do that when I'm scum" argument (this was regarding future NK speculation). Charter then lurks for a few days again (but at least he apologises for it!)

Wait, so you accuse him of NOT scumhunting, and then make points about how he WAS suspecting players? And HE is contradicting himself? Huge contradiction on your part here, Nameless.

His suspicion on Porkens was legit. I suspected Porkens as well. So did enough people that he was lynched. Actually, I want to go look at the Porkens lynch.

Nameless, you suggested the massclaim. If you are scum, I'm sure you knew Rishi was planning to fakeclaim cop. You would have wanted the real cop outed at this time. But, before anyone claims anything, you vote for Rishi. I can see you doing this as scum. You would vote Rishi and then want Porkens lynched.

Wow, looking up to the time Porkens self-hammered and the final vote count, you were the

only

one to stay on Rishi. (For the record, Stef was on Porkens and ZazieR wasn't voting at all.) This looks very good for you. You knew it was Rishi the whole time. Everyone else was wrong in voting Porkens. Oh wait, knowing who is scum is easy if you are scum yourself.

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

After being sure that I was by far the scummiest player for some time, Charter decides to vote Porkens in #535 on the basis of Porkens making a minor point against Kmd and Camn - Charter even admits he's not trying to convince anyone, so this basically amounts to another OMGUS for his partner. IMHO what Porkens pointed out WAS still slightly suspicious, even knowing Camn is majority, but according to Charter it was "the scummiest thing said in this game". And then immediately turns his attention back to me by reposting a long debunked and non updated case against me. Somewhat later (#651) Charter returns his vote to me, again with no explanation.

This was before the mason claim. Porkens was trying to make conncections between Camn and myself. Charter knew these accusations to be false and reacted. He was mistaken in thinking Porkens was scum trying to make connections. Looking back, I see what Porkens was looking at. As town, he saw two players going back and forth, and was trying to make sure nobody assumed a one town, one scum situation. From his point of view, it was possible that we were both scum. Camn has flipped town, so this has been proven false. Also proven false is Charter's accusation based on this. Porkens' accusation was false and he wasn't scum, so it's also proven that false accusations aren't guarenteed to mean scum. Charter was wrong just like Porkens, our cop, was wrong.

He wasn't trying to convince anyone because that would mean claiming, which he didn't want to do yet. He knew that I was town because we are confirmed masons. He can't get that across to anyone else without claiming. Actually, he'd have to claim for both of us in order to do that. And I wouldn't expect anyone to follow blindly, so if it were me, I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone in that sense either. I might have tried to make a case on Porkens though.

Why is changing a vote back to your previous number one suspect scummy?

Refusal to answer questions

If you're just going to do this, I'll stop responding to anything you direct at me

I try not to even acknowledge crap cases put out against me,

Actually, I'm done arguing with you porkens.

You get the idea. Then there are the times when Charter just accuses others of not reading his posts rather than defend himself. And let's not forget the times (#558, #641) Charter decided it was a bad thing to bring up scumtells if they weren't specifically directed at you. And when Charter does reply to SpyreX's questions, he frequently didn't actually answer them:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

You know I cant answer this right now.

(This exchange was

not

related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

So, Why Porkens or Nameless and not me?

I think they are scum and you are not. Their actions are different than yours.

And Charter's later awful and highly anti-majority excuse for these kind of actions:

I didn't even try and act not scummy

I think the first quote was in response to something he saw as word-twisting.

Yes, anti-town. People should respond to "crap cases" and point out why they are crap. You can't deny that there are a lot of players who say things like this even as town though. I find myself arguing this in games a lot. I've noticed that it's not just scum that say this. Sometimes, it's players on SA who think they are above me and don't have to respond to anything I say.

The Porkens thing is similar to the above in some ways. I can see the point here though. Both were very clear on their stances and nothing was going to change for the better.

He didn't answer Spy because it would require claiming. Spy had accused Charter and myself of being scum. Charter knew that Spy was wrong with this. He wasn't going to come out and say "you are wrong because we are masons." Ok, I just read that you said it was about Rishi. I'll go look now.

You're twisting everything I say to make me look bad. The sad part is I actually think

you think

you're on to something. I can tell you that you're horribly wrong in almost your entire read of this game, but that probably won't help matters.

Ok, first of all, it wasn't a definite "you are on to something." It was a "you THINK you are on to something."

Spy came back with:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

So, knowing that Spy was town, I think Spy unintentionally misread it.

Let me see what came before all of this now so we can find out if you are right about it being about Food and Rishi.

This is an obvious statement. This has nothing to do with the fact neither Porkens nor Camn, by defintion, could be role fishing for a role that already claimed.

Yeah, you best hope I don't get to L-1 then if you plan on making it far in this game.

Wow, this is just THE AWESOME. I'd love to see how you not being here would affect making it far. Unless, by "making it far" you mean that you're scum and killing you makes the game take less time.

In the scum-race update - Rishi seems to have sprung a leak and went into lurking but Charter decided to slam his foot down around that third turn and is touching Camn and KMD now... WHO WILL WIN?

P.S. Scum vibes from Rishi, Rishi is town. I LOVE IT

Ok, Charter never quoted, but it came after this post, so I think you are right. It was about his stance on Rishi.

But the fact is, he said he thought that Spy THOUGHT he was onto something, which I think meant Charter was saying Spy thought Charter was scum and that Spy was wrong.

Next point you mention is Spy asking why you and Porkens are scum and Spy isn't. I'd be asking why Spy was so anxious to group himself with Porkens and you. You 3 are all different players. Maybe certain aspects of your play are similar, but there is no guarentee that all 3 have the same role. Charter answered by saying he thought you and Porkens were scum and Spy wasn't. Why is this not an acceptable answer? Why does he have to say the 3 of you are all scum or all town? I see nothing scummy about suspecting you and Porkens, but NOT Spy. At the time, I was suspicious of Porkens, and slightly you, but I really didn't see Spy as scum. What I saw as rolefishing from Spy was annoying me, but I didn't think he was scum.

No idea about the not even trying to act not scummy comment. I mean, personally, I don't care if people see me as scummy. I just like to get ideas out. I don't know if this is what Charter meant or not though.

The mason claim

What the claim proves: Kmd and Charter can nighttalk, and planned a mason claim. (As can scum.)
What the claim does not explain: Every single point against Charter thus far and those still left to go in this post. Enough said.

Yes, we can definitely talk at night. Nobody will argue with you on this one. Scum talk at night. Masons talk at night. Point?

You see things as scummy from Charter. Ok. What does this have to do with the claim?

You just used the mason claim as a point against us. Why?

Nonsensical statements

Fair enough, EVERYONE went a bit nuts near the end of D2, but some of Charter's statements are particularly illogical.

@Spyrex, I completely see how you could have thought of me as scum. I saw it the whole time, but other than just repeating, "you're wrong spyrex", I had no way of getting you off my back.

This is one of several instances where Charter ignores the vast majority of the arguments made against him, instead making generalised statements and attempting to explain away everything unrelated via the mason claim. SpyreX suspected Charter for many reasons (Charter's unexplained difference between SpyreX and Nameless/Porkens, Charter wavering on his Rishi stance were two recent examples) that are not explained by the claim, and if Charter is majority then he clearly COULD have gotten SpyreX off his back by explaining those kinds of statements.

Hey, looks like I was right about Nameless as well. All of your scumtells are explained away by the fact that I interpret and think about things before I act on them.

The first sentence here is unexplained and meaningless. The second is false, senseless, and another unexplained generalisation.

However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

You're allowed to change your mind, it's the fact that you do it so as to be going with the crowd that is scummy.

In the first quote Charter is obviously saying that changing your mind (all that Porkens did) is a bad thing, so that's a pretty stupid statement and contradiction in itself. In the second quote here Charter seems to think that it is scummy to change your mind after several other people have reasonably done so, which is even more nonsensical.

[Porkens]'s probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

About the only thing linking Porkens and I at that time were that we shifted our votes towards Charter together (along with SpyreX) and that neither of us initially believed the mason claim - I'd been unsure of Porkens most of D2. Apparently, Charter thinks that agreeing in that instance would have been enough to guarantee we were of the same alignment. That is, in fact, craplogic.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS [...] How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

The answer was majority quickhammering, but the leading question was clearly BS even at the time. The fact Charter assumes he was the only one to notice a particular detail (rather than eg. nobody considering it overly worth mentioning) along with the aggressiveness and forcefulness of his post is arrogant and not even trying to help reasonable discussion for the majority.

IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

I'm not sure exactly what Charter's logic was supposed to be here, but apparently the uninformed majority

never

mislynch power roles if they wait a period of time before making their decision?

NO. YOU LIE AGAIN PORKENS. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. I VERY DISTINCTLY SAID DO NOT MASSCLAIM.

Charter here interprets a light hearted joke as a damning scumtell. Either that, or Charter is playing one long joke on the rest of us. -_-

He was saying that he could see why Spy saw it as scummy. Yes, he should have explained better, but can you honestly tell me that as town, you have never seen points against you that you have a hard time explaining? I think that was the case here. Not sure if it was this game or another, but one time as town, I used the line "if I were you, I'd question me too." I did my best to answer, but it wasn't a very good response. That happens sometimes.

He saw something that made him more confident on you being scum. This HAS NOT been proven false. From my point of view, it has a 67% chance of being true. From a neutral person watching the game, there would be a 40% chance of it being true. I don't see any reason to jump on that as a bad comment yet.

His comment on being positive about Porkens: this is why I don't use definites. He was confident, but not positive. He was wrong. As was I. You weren't though! You were the ONLY one who was right on voting Rishi! Good job on your part![/sarcastic props]

I agree with Charter's comment about changing your mind. Nothing wrong with that on it's own. Changing your mind in agreement with everyone else more times than one is scummy. It looks like someone who does that is trying to fit in, and not making their own points.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

I still think Porkens' hammer on Stormer was anti-town. Obviously not a scum move, but a ballsy one for a cop. I think you or Spy already mentioned that it was a ballsy move, and I agree. It was ballsy because it is just calling for suspcion the next day. It calls for suspcion because it was anti-town.

Being arrogant does not mean you are scum. Want a perfect example of that? On SA, Tom Tucker in Douglas Adams Mafia.(Too bad Spy is dead here. I know he read that game.) His ego made everyone want to lynch him whether he was scum or not. He was town. It was so bad that there was even a request by a survivng townie for an extra day AFTER the game just so they could lynch Tucker even if the town had already won! I will never listen to the case of arrogance, ego, or "holier than thou attitude" as scumtells again.

It makes it easier to avoid mislynching power roles if it discussed a little more. Doesn't completely eliminate the chance, but it helps.

Because he was STRONGLY against the massclaim. See the bolded statement saying NOT to do it. I think he was frustrated with Porkens at this point, and I see where this post came from.

Suddenly stops contributing

As of N2, Charter has done no scumhunting and made no effort to convince anyone who is scum. Filter his posts and check. There's not much to explain or say about that.

Well, Day 3 Rishi was the obvious lynch. Day 4 we no-lynched intentionally. And now we are here. What do you want in that time? You could argue that I haven't scum hunted in that time either. Or any of us.

'Exaggerations' when making accusations

These should speak for themselves. I'm only quoting four here for the sake of brevity, but Charter has been doing this in various degrees across the whole game.

Melikesfood and Stormer [...] they're probably scum too. Kmd and Malyss [...] are most likely to be scum. Charter [...] may well be lurker scum.

[Nameless] Has managed to name five people as almost definitive scum,

Your weak defense of him is noted, and I defy you to find something to defend him with that comes from this game.

Are you serious? So now my only option is thinking that Food is scum? Do I have no free will to think what I want? [...]I'd say drake is obvscum for his blatent not even considering the other side of this issue, and in fact, trying to get others to blindly follow him without thinking for themselves.

Why am I interested? Because I think there's a decent chance you are both scum together.

You are tunneling so bad it's not even funny. [...] Seriously, you're doing the same thing as Nameless where you're finding more scum than there are.

Wait, that's another stupid contradiction I missed up until now too. He had tunnel vision AND was suspicious of too many people?

Having slept on it, I agree that this claim (as badly done as it was) is too bold for a scum-pair to make at this point in the game. And you are right; a cult would be overpowered in a 12 person game (where I come from, masons can recruit, and I always forget they don't here.)

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything

I think I'm done here. *Smiles, and gestures Charter towards the stage.*

"Probably scum", "most likely to be scum", "may very well be scum". The last is the only one that you didn't sound very confident in. It's not a huge stretch to say that you "name five people as almost definitive scum." And you did put yourself where you can say you were suspicious of any of these people. It really helps if you need to vote one of these people for a bandwagon and someone says you never mentioned suspicion before. You can go back and say "yes I have. Right here."

Valid point with Drake. No offense to Drake, but he is one of those players who jumps on stupid things like that. He called Charter suspicious because he didn't think Food was scum. Bad argument from Drake. I'd be frustrated too.

Valid point at first. Spy was tunneling on us being scum. Just like you are now. Not sure where Spy was naming more scum than there were though. I probably could find it looking back, but I won't unless you really want me to do so badly enough that your vote hinges on whether Spy named several people. I don't expect that to be the case, but if it is, let me know.

Tunnel vision can mean a couple of things:
A) You will only listen to things that show a person to be one alignment and ignore everything else.
B) You only look at one player (or very few players) and ignore all others.
I think Charter meant A and you are taking it as B. If he meant B, it's a contradiction. If he meant A, it isn't a contradiction at all. Nameless, be careful not to strawman.

Fact is, Porkens did a complete 180. He completely refused to believe the claim at first, and then decided to believe it. At the time, it looked like he changed his mind in order to agree with everyone after the lynch wasn't going to happen. Now, I think he just realized he was off on his take on the mason claim and on the cult theory.



So, that's what I have. Sorry it took so long to get this post up. I think I PM'd it to myself 4 or 5 times because I was interupted by something. Charter, I'd reccomend still responding to Nameless, mostly because there were a couple of things I couldn't answer because I didn't know what was going through your head. Also because it's good to get your own take on these things.


Logic tells me Nameless is scum. Gut says Stef. I don't want to ignore the possibility that ZazieR is scum too though. My guess right now would be Nameless and Stef in that order.

[Kmd4390]

Sorry about double post and the length of it.

[charter]

(I try to avoid eye bleeding walls of text whenever possible. This will be one of those times)

@all of you who voted the no-lynch. Why did you rush into it? I think that is just odd. Now the game is in it's last day. Since you voted no-lynch now it's easier for the scumpair to finish. If yesterday they needed two votes to kill a majority member now they only need one vote to hammer and win. Considering Charter and KMD pushed the most for the No-Lynch they would be my prime suspects right now.

I already explained this yesterday. We either no lynch and do it fast and not say anything, or we lynch yesterday in MYLO. I wanted to no lynch, and nobody seemed to object. You don't drag it out because you will let scum know exactly where you stand and whether to keep you alive or not. Town doesn't need to know where other townies stand, because they don't know who is a townie! Hence, they can't base any decisions off what the rest of the town says. WIFOM, but I'm betting Camn got killed because she didn't keep her mouth shut and said she believed me and Kmd.

Zazier's claim was terrible. I'll be taking that in to consideration.

Response to Nameless's case...
I was not actively lurking. I had my vote on someone and stated the reasons for it. I was actively participating. So what if they aren't my own?

Bandwagoning to get information is not poor play. Show me how it would be scummy, since you're attacking me with that. Or save your time, because it's not scummy. The reason I was always suspicious of Rishi is that he didn't realize that town was actually mafia in this game. He knew he was scum and didn't know the flavor. I saw it in his first post. Obviously it wasn't a good reason, but it was my reason for suspecting him. I never said it because no one would buy it and it's easy to say "I forgot".

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

I have been scumhunting. You could put your name in this paragraph and it would ring true as well.

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

So because I thought porkens was scummier is an arbitrary reason?

(This exchange was not related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

Actually it is. It was in response to porkens' wild kmd-camn theory.

Nonsensical statements

Spy picked up that me and Kmd were connected. He assumed scum, which is why I acted so funny.

Suddenly stops contributing

I've been busy in real life. All my games have suffered. It has nothing to do with this game.

I exaggerate when I state suspicions all the time. How is that scummy? It's quite clear that I exaggerate, so it's not like it fools anybody.

I didn't read Kmd's post yet. Also, I'm not automatically going to gun for Nameless. I'm actually going to, you know, scumhunt. Go back over the game and look for connections between people and Rishi. Nameless contradicts himself with his absolute certainty that I'm scum, but no vote.

[Lord Gurgi]

Nothing has happened, except my Firefox died trying to load this page.

[Stef]

Damn i hate such long posts... mainly when i write them but also when i read them. I know i've been promising a longer and more detailed post... it will have to wait since i have to leave now and i'll prolly be back in about 12 hours.

[Nameless]

Counterpoints to Kmd:

(I'm avoiding quotes to save your scrollbar. If I don't respond to a specific point it's safe to assume I disagree with it but can't elaborate other than just interpretation or opinion.)

Kmd, the difference between Charter and myself, and indeed Charter and most players early day one, is that I actively brought up suspiciouns and started discussion, giving reasons for my votes and generally scumhunting. The only time Charter added any new thoughts was when Charter himself was being attacked - otherwise it just agreeing with what somebody else had already said. Regarding Rishi in particular, I put together a minor case against him, stated my reasons (minor though they were) and considered Rishi's response. What Charter did was vote for the first bandwagon without any new reasons, and therefore no new discussion. Why I suggest Charter was bussing is because Charter never gave any reason for his position, when he claimed to suspect Rishi and when he later claimed not to suspect Rishi. And I've explained before why pressuring/bandwagoning someone without reasons is bad play, and if this were the case, then Charter wouldn't have felt the need to remind us of his mild suspicion into D2 when that pressure didn't exist.
You say I "let [Rishi] off easily" with a "quick unvote", but as I said I only had minor points against Rishi at the time and he responded to them well enough that there was no reason not to turn and scumhunt elsewhere. The only reason I actually placed a vote at that time rather than merely FOS or asking a question was because I wanted to show that I WAS starting serious discussion and scumhunting rather than random voting or talking about baseball.
Incidentally, saying that "you don't think" scum would be likely to do X is not WIFOM, but it is baseless opinion that does nothing to make Charter's actions look less suspicious to anybody else.

The thing about small suspicions is not a valid point (really), it's a

stupid

point. If I see something mildly suspicious in the early game ... what do you think I, as majority, should do? Ignore it? Because there probably aren't going to be any greater scumtells if I just sit and just defend myself the way Charter did. Also, set myself up to vote almost anyone? If it's possible that Charter was suspicious of me but didn't say anything, then it's possible for anyone to be THAT suspicious of someone and not saything, then I would have no reason to need to set myself up to vote someone in the first place. If somebody votes without reasons or suspicion, that's bad. It doesn't really matter regarding the votes 'validity' if you have already brought those up or if you bring them up as you vote (if anything bringing them up as you vote is better as they're updated and more relevant) - except that bringing them up earlier allows more discussion, which means more scumtells, which means greater majority success. Charter's argument here is craplogic. [/Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.]

Charter was not scumhunting, and his attacks on players were bad. These are not mutually exclusive - In the vast majority of cases Charter only attacked other players when they were raising suspicions on him. Charter very, very rarely actively persued suspects or asked questions but only made bad OMGUSs as a defensive reaction when called out for something.

I've already explained my reasons for suggesting the massclaim (in #747). Both they, and the reason I voted Rishi then, were largely because I'd given up conventionally convincing anyone to lynch you or Charter on that day. Rishi was, due to a few recent actions, my third suspect. Ergo, I didn't vote Porkens when Rishi counterclaimed. Not much more I can say about that.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Porkens "trying to make connections", and even if Charter thought so and knew they were false, am I expected to believe Charter is stupid enough to instantly consider someone a prime suspect on such a minor thing that any uninformed player could make a mistake about? Changing your vote back to a previous suspect is not itself scummy, but doing so without any apparent prompt and without even a cursory explanation is.

If somebody twists your words, I think the appropriate response to point out to the other players how they are doing so, not to flat out ignore them. And Charter COULD have answered the majority of SpyreX's questions without claiming because the majority of SpyreX's suspicions of Charter had nothing to do with you. He did, and has, not. The "I think they are scum and you are not" was not an acceptable answer because that was

exactly what SpyreX wanted Charter to explain and he did not do so

.

(Uh, I didn't use the mason claim as a point against you. I briefly mentioned it in my case to remind everyone why it doesn't count as a defence to all my suspicions, despite what Charter has generalised.)

If Charter saw something that made him more confident that I was scum then he should have actually said what it

was

rather than say "Hey, looks like I was right" - that's misleading, probably deliberatly so. (I like how you're trying to subtlying cast suspicion on me for being right about Rishi, BTW, because it's such a retardly Too Townie argument that it makes you look worse. Especially when unlike SOME people I could care to mention, I didn't keep going on about it.)

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

... I literally can't follow this paragraph. Seriously, could you please reword it to be clearer?

Being arrogant doesn't mean you are scum, but it doesn't help the majority. The less you help the majority, the scummier you are. It adds up.
I could actually argue that too much discussion increases the chance of scum BSing their way out of a lynch with a claim (rather than the majority going with their 'gut' and hammering), but I'll not. (Brevity, and keeping on topic. That is why.)
Being frustrated is ALSO not an excuse for scummy behaviour.

Fact is, Porkens changed his mind. Calling it "a complete 180" doesn't make it any more dramatic, just a poor and unfair interpretation. Also, you can't refuse to believe something, because that's not how belief works. (Had that argument with Christians! Fun.)

Counterpoints to Charter:

Avoiding "eye bleeding walls of text" is NOT an excuse for being unable to defend yourself. As far as I can see you've actually responded to very few points, generalised most of them, and ignored the rest. My above counterpoints and initial case already covers most of it.

In order to get information from bandwagoning there has to actually be a specific point and reason for that specific bandwagon. It's scummy to use that as an excuse because you never gave your own reasons, and scum have obvious reasons to bandwagon as well - distancing, or lynching innocents. It does not, to me, look like you made any effort to get information out of Rishi.

The reason I was always suspicious of Rishi is that he didn't realize that town was actually mafia in this game. He knew he was scum and didn't know the flavor. I saw it in his first post.

CON-GRAT-ULATIONS! You, Charter, have finally won the Stupidest Statement Competition! Have some streamers.

I really think "scum" should mean the "informed" minority. In this case, it's townscum, but scum all the same.

I exaggerate when I state suspicions all the time. How is that scummy?

Well, many of your 'exagerations' are outright lies and misleading the town rather than stating the facts is never promajority. Just because you failed to convince anybody doesn't mean that it was okay.

Final Notes:

what I really want to see is Charter compile his own case against me

There will be some points on Nameless,

Thanks Kmd, you've been a real help.

No, I will shoot down whatever terrible logic he has posted

Charter, I am now waiting for your compiled case against me.

[charter]

No, you dont get it. I'm not starting out today assuming you're scum and nothing will change my mind. That's not how lylo works. I'm going to go back and reread rather than just assume.

[Nameless]

If you're not going to start out assuming that I'm scum, then you should give me a chance to properly defend myself

by

telling me all the reasons that you've suspected me thus far.

[Obvious goad]That is ... assuming you actually have a real case, of course. [/Obvious goad]

[Kmd4390]

Zazier's claim was terrible. I'll be taking that in to consideration.

What was terrible about it?

Looking at Nameless's post now.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd, the difference between Charter and myself, and indeed Charter and most players early day one, is that I actively brought up suspiciouns and started discussion

So did Rishi. Rishi was scum. That doesn't make you town.

Regarding Rishi in particular, I put together a minor case against him, stated my reasons (minor though they were) and considered Rishi's response.

What would you have done differently as Rishi's scumbuddy? Personally, I might have been tempted to make a flimsy case, let a small bandwagon form, and then jump to a new case just like you did.

What Charter did was vote for the first bandwagon without any new reasons, and therefore no new discussion.

The most common early discussion is one that is based around bandwagoning. And you say he voted for the first bandwagon. It wasn't a bandwagon until he was on it. He was the second vote. He was bandwagoning to pressure Rishi. Apparently from reading Charter's last post, he actually was suspicious of Rishi at that time. I see no reason why putting a second vote on the first bandwagon of the game is scummy.

Why I suggest Charter was bussing is because Charter never gave any reason for his position, when he claimed to suspect Rishi and when he later claimed not to suspect Rishi.

IMO, Rishi played the part of seemingly pro-town scum up until Porkens was lynched and Rishi was obvscum. I'll admit that I kept changing my opinion on him too.

The only reason I actually placed a vote at that time rather than merely FOS or asking a question was because I wanted to show that I WAS starting serious discussion and scumhunting rather than random voting or talking about baseball.

So you want to make sure we know you are doing something pro-town? Ok, thanks.

talking about baseball.

Congrats to the Phillies

Incidentally, saying that "you don't think" scum would be likely to do X is not WIFOM, but it is baseless opinion that does nothing to make Charter's actions look less suspicious to anybody else.

Actually, it's entirely WIFOM. Player A says Player B is town because B did action X which scum would NEVER do. Scum C does action X after this statement. Is Scum C going to get a free pass to endgame and win it for the scum? Didn't think so.

The thing about small suspicions is not a valid point (really), it's a

stupid

point. If I see something mildly suspicious in the early game ... what do you think I, as majority, should do? Ignore it?

YOU SAY WHAT IS SUSPCIOUS INSTEAD OF SAYING THESE TWO PLAYERS ARE PROBABLY SCUM. THESE TWO ARE LIKELY SCUM. THIS ONE COULD BE SCUM. (Caps are because I know people will skim this post and they should read some of this.)

Because there probably aren't going to be any greater scumtells if I just sit and just defend myself the way Charter did. Also, set myself up to vote almost anyone? If it's possible that Charter was suspicious of me but didn't say anything, then it's possible for anyone to be THAT suspicious of someone and not saything, then I would have no reason to need to set myself up to vote someone in the first place. If somebody votes without reasons or suspicion, that's bad. It doesn't really matter regarding the votes 'validity' if you have already brought those up or if you bring them up as you vote (if anything bringing them up as you vote is better as they're updated and more relevant) - except that bringing them up earlier allows more discussion, which means more scumtells, which means greater majority success. Charter's argument here is craplogic. [/Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.]

Right, but when you put the suspicion on too many people, it doesn't look nearly as strong, and it's less likely that you get scum to slip.

I've already explained my reasons for suggesting the massclaim (in #747). Both they, and the reason I voted Rishi then, were largely because I'd given up conventionally convincing anyone to lynch you or Charter on that day. Rishi was, due to a few recent actions, my third suspect. Ergo, I didn't vote Porkens when Rishi counterclaimed. Not much more I can say about that.

:!:This explains your reason for keeping your vote on Rishi. You were already suspicious of him. Wait, here's Charter's point. Read that over again.

You were already suspicious of him.

Isn't this exactly what Charter's main point on you says that you could argue as scum at any time you need to?

It doesn't explain why you wanted the massclaim in the first place. I can see where as scum, you would know that Rishi was going to claim cop. You could have figured that we have a real cop somewhere, and there would be two claims. Rishi breadcrumbed his "role" which if you were scum, I'm sure he told you he would. His claim could look better than Porkens. You could vote Rishi and still get Porkens lynched without even pushing for it. If nobody else claimed cop, Rishi slides through as our "cop".

As town, what good does the massclaim do for you? Did you pick up on Rishi's breadcrumbing and Porkens softclaiming? Honestly, before the claim, I thought Rishi was the cop. I didn't see anything from Porkens though. If you really saw it from both (Spy may have), then you deserve some serious credit for that.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Porkens "trying to make connections", and even if Charter thought so and knew they were false, am I expected to believe Charter is stupid enough to instantly consider someone a prime suspect on such a minor thing that any uninformed player could make a mistake about? Changing your vote back to a previous suspect is not itself scummy, but doing so without any apparent prompt and without even a cursory explanation is.

Tell me if this is possible. He made a bad assumption that because Porkens was wrong, and he knew Porkens was wrong, he thought Porkens was scum. He realized it wasn't a majorly strong point, and switched back to where he was in the first place: Voting for you.

If somebody twists your words, I think the appropriate response to point out to the other players how they are doing so, not to flat out ignore them. And Charter COULD have answered the majority of SpyreX's questions without claiming because the majority of SpyreX's suspicions of Charter had nothing to do with you. He did, and has, not. The "I think they are scum and you are not" was not an acceptable answer because that was

exactly what SpyreX wanted Charter to explain and he did not do so

.

Spy connected himself with you and Porkens. He said that the three of you were playing the same way. Charter disagreed and said that he hadn't seen anything scummy from Spy. He had already made other points about BOTH you and Porkens. Good points or not, they were there. I think it speaks for itself that he was suspicious of players who he HAD points on, and not a player who he DIDN'T have any points against.

(I like how you're trying to subtlying cast suspicion on me for being right about Rishi, BTW, because it's such a retardly Too Townie argument that it makes you look worse. Especially when unlike SOME people I could care to mention, I didn't keep going on about it.)

MISREPRESENTATION OF MY POINT RIGHT HERE.

I'm NOT using the "too townie to be town" argument. I'm not attacking you for being right about Rishi.

I AM saying that you were the ONLY person to be voting Rishi at the final count and that you didn't seem to push very hard. Your vote was there, but you never really tried to get us to lynch Rishi over Porkens. If I remember correctly, you said that when Porkens flips cop, Rishi is the obvious next day's lynch. That's just more trying to enforce that you were the only one who was right about Rishi.

So it isn't at all a "too townie" argument OR just the fact that you were right. It's the way you went about everything. It just looked too planned.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

... I literally can't follow this paragraph. Seriously, could you please reword it to be clearer?

Ok. You said something saying that there wasn't a connection between you, Spy, and Porkens. This was

after

you had used Spy's argument, which stated that there WAS a connection, as a point against Charter. You then go on to say that Charter was the one making the connection between the three of you.

So, it's a lose-lose situation because if he gave into Spy and said "yes, the connection is there. You must be scum or they must be town." (I know that's to the extreme, but it makes the point more clear), then that is scummy, but if he says "no, the connection isn't there. Porkens and Nameless are scummy. You aren't.", he gets attacked for that.

It's like there is no right answer.

Fact is, Porkens changed his mind. Calling it "a complete 180" doesn't make it any more dramatic, just a poor and unfair interpretation. Also, you can't refuse to believe something, because that's not how belief works. (Had that argument with Christians! Fun.)

Well, I'm not saying that Charter was right on this one because he obviously was wrong, but you should be able to see where he was coming from.

what I really want to see is Charter compile his own case against me

There will be some points on Nameless,

Thanks Kmd, you've been a real help.

So only Charter can be suspicious of you? Am I supposed to ignore suspicion on you? I'd hope not because you asked me something similar in this post.

[Kmd4390]

Every point there is tells me to vote for Nameless. There is still something that bugs me every time I want to vote for him that says he could still be town. My gut wants me to vote for Stef, but I don't see why. I'm trying not to forget about ZazieR though.

[Stef]

I hereby apologize for my short content-less posts in my games lately and for my following leave of absence but recent events IRL severely shortened my spare time. I will probably be able to make up for it Sunday. Posting this in all my games..